Domestic Farming and Food Supply

Debate between Alex Easton and Carla Lockhart

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. That was my next point: 84% of respondents to this survey have reduced, postponed or cancelled investment. That is really stark. More than half identified inheritance tax policy as a barrier to investment. Farmers are holding back on replacing machinery, improving livestock housing and carrying out drainage work. Ministers keep telling farmers to become more productive. How are they supposed to do that if the money needed to invest is being held back to prepare for a future tax bill? I welcome the increase in the combined agricultural and business property relief allowance from the original proposal of £1 million to £2.5 million per person, but I have never accepted that that resolves the problem.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving leadership on this issue, and so many others. Does she agree that in Northern Ireland and across the UK, domestic farming must be viable, and that, to achieve that, the Government must provide support to help farmers manage rising costs and ensure that producers receive a fair return?

[Carla Lockhart]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s assessment. I cannot be clearer: the family farm tax should be scrapped, and if Labour does not scrap it tomorrow, the party—and particularly its rural MPs—will not be forgiven at the ballot box. The land, sheds and machinery are needed to earn a living, and their value cannot simply be withdrawn from a bank account. If land has to be sold, the farm loses some of its ability to produce food and generate an income. For a business already operating on tight margins, that can make all the difference. It is not unreasonable for a farmer who has worked all their life to want their children to carry on that work. These are families who have gone without, borrowed, reinvested and spent years building something they hoped would outlast them.

More than a third of respondents to the UFU survey anticipated an inheritance tax bill of at least £100,000, and more than seven in 10 are less confident about passing on a financially viable business. Almost nine in 10 reported increased family stress or worry because of the changes. I ask the Minister to think about the conversations behind those figures—a father wondering what will happen when he is gone; a mother worried about the burden being left to her children; a young person who wants to farm but cannot see how the figures will stack up. There is enough worry in farming without the Government adding to it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can lift some of that uncertainty, and I urge the Minister to make the case for restoring the historical reliefs and allowing working family farms to be passed on.

There are also decisions closer to home that are holding the industry back. In Northern Ireland, farmers are told to improve their buildings, reduce emissions and invest in better slurry management but when they try to do those things, they can find themselves caught in planning delays and environmental assessments with no clear way forward. In some cases, they cannot even get betterment through the planning system. A farmer may want to replace an old shed with a modern building, improve animal welfare and reduce emissions yet still struggle to secure approval. How does leaving the old building in place help anyone? I accept that applications must be properly assessed, but there must be a workable route for proposals that demonstrably improve the existing position.

Farmers are spending money on advice, reports and revised applications while the costs of proposed work continue to rise. Ministers at Stormont need to get to grips with this. Farmers cannot be expected to modernise if the system prevents them from doing so. The situation is exactly the same here in GB, and farmers are fed up with being made the fall guy in the pursuit of net zero. They are expected to produce affordable food, look after the countryside and pay for the changes demanded of them, often without any realistic explanation of how their business is supposed to bear the cost. Some of those making the demands would do well to spend a week on a working farm.

Border Security: UK-Ireland Co-operation

Debate between Alex Easton and Carla Lockhart

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

I will address just that as I go on with my speech. We are the only part of the UK with a soft land border with the EU. That reality has been downplayed by politicians in London and Dublin alike when it comes to illegal immigration. Northern Ireland has been left uniquely exposed—the weak link in the UK’s border security chain—and our people have been put at risk. In the case of the Sudanese attacker, they were quite literally at risk of life and limb. The attempted beheading in Belfast has served as a brutal reminder to us all. That is what happens when Northern Ireland’s security is treated as an afterthought.

The attacker came here illegally. He travelled from Sudan to Paris, flew to Dublin and took a bus to Belfast. That is all public knowledge. He was granted asylum with astonishing haste. He passed through two other safe countries first. He completed a 10-page application to gain access—really? It is simply not acceptable that our UK border with the Republic of Ireland has been left so porous.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Given the clear and present danger posed by terrorism across the world, organised crime, and the trafficking of drugs, people and illegal weapons across the border, does she agree that it is incumbent on both Governments to deepen real-time intelligence and data sharing, and to tighten the legal and procedural frameworks to streamline extradition? I also point out that our border is totally open; thousands of people could be entering the UK through Northern Ireland. We do not have any numbers, we do not know who is coming, and we do not know how good or bad those individuals could be.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is to protect its citizens. When violent offenders can simply walk or drive across the border, that duty is not being met. The Government have taken strenuous efforts to check goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland, including plants, agricultural machinery and seeds, yet illegal migrants can simply hop on a bus from the Republic of Ireland and cross the border, no questions asked and no vetting required.

When functioning properly, the common travel area is a practical arrangement that works well for people living right across these islands. It ensures that UK and Irish citizens can travel relatively freely within the zone, at least in principle. That is a sensible system and we should keep it that way.