Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Richard Foord

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”

[Richard Foord]

I suppose some in the farming community will not be taking up my right hon. Friend’s dating tips, but is he aware that 46% of farms are owned by single farmers and that a single farmer with 200 acres of land would have to pay 136% of their yearly profits to cover this tax bill?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded.

The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs.

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel.

Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.

Access to Redress Schemes

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Richard Foord

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member is exactly right to draw a thread between several of these scandals. That is partly because when a new scandal emerges, the organisation responsible is often the organisation charged with redress. Andrew Bailey, while chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said in 2017 that

“it just does not seem to be sensible that, every time one of these things happens, we have to set up something new.”

Beyond the Post Office schemes, we have heard criticism both here and in the press on the infected blood inquiry, as the hon. Member mentioned, and Windrush. That criticism has pointed to intolerable delays or the problematic features that often let the offending firm or institution off the hook.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am interested to develop my hon. Friend’s thought about the Financial Conduct Authority. If I am able, I will speak at greater length about it later in the debate. It administers the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is a fund set up by levies on financial services companies themselves. It is the maladministration of the FCA or a lack of proper regulation that often leads to these claims being brought. Essentially, the people paying for the scheme have to do so because of the incompetence of the FCA.

[Richard Foord]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The FCA is not directly accountable to Parliament, but is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury. I, too, have had constituents finding themselves in a David and Goliath scenario, trying to tackle issues of unfairness with the FCA.

Likewise, in finance, we have seen the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products and widespread financial misconduct against small and medium-sized enterprises by the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking conducted the first systematic review of compensation schemes in the UK and found flaws common to several of them. Schemes are frequently blighted by unnecessary complexity, delays and a huge emotional and legal burden on victims. Often schemes are shrouded in secrecy and lack proper independence.