Finance (No. 2) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for their heartfelt speeches in favour of these measures. I also note the comments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), which I can assure her I did listen to in full, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), both of whom, I accept, have tremendous expertise in this area.

As I have set out, we believe that the measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation because they reflect the reality of how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as these changes continue. The Government’s objective is to strike a balance by raising revenue fairly while avoiding further pressures on land-based operators. New clauses 21 and 25 ask the Chancellor to review the impact of and make a statement on the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of gambling, with 3% of adults classified as problem gamblers and 5% at moderate risk. I welcome her efforts in this regard, and the money that the proposals will raise. Will she give a commitment to the Committee that she will enter into conversations with the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland getting its fair share of this levy, to ensure that organisations that help those with gambling addictions are able to avail themselves of this funding to help people in that situation? I spoke recently to a constituent who had started gambling at the age of six, and it really struck a chord. Those people need help and I just ask her to do that.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Before I commit to her that I will take that forward, I would like to check what discussions have already taken place. I hope she will accept that that is necessary from my point of view.

Both the proposed new clauses focus on the impacts of the changes to the gambling duty and ask for a commitment to update Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed. First, this Government did not announce, and are not proposing to make, any changes to the treatment of free plays or free bets through this Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not make any changes to the duty charged on bets placed on horseracing in high street betting shops.

Secondly, on the illegal market, which has been raised a number of times, the Gambling Commission is already tackling that risk and is protecting consumers, but we recognise that modern technology makes it easier for illegal websites to target consumers. To strengthen enforcement and protect consumers from dangerous illegal sites, we are providing an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years. I hope I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that the £100 million a year in the form of the statutory levy is ringfenced for prevention, treatment and research in this area.

The Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure at the Budget. As is set out in that note, consideration will be given to monitoring and evaluating the expected Exchequer impacts of the policy after at least two years of monitoring data has been collected and analysed. More broadly, the Government continually monitor the operation of all taxes and keep them under review to ensure that they deliver on their intended outcomes and, indeed, are fit for purpose. For those reasons, the proposed statement and the impact assessment are not necessary.

The measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation. They reflect how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as those changes continue. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised levels of employment. He will know that right across the piece, the OBR expects that employment levels will rise in every year of the forecast. Costings were also raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. The OBR has taken account of behavioural impacts within its costing. Of course, those costings have been certified and scrutinised in the usual way.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about engagement with industry. I can confirm that the Government, as I hope she would expect, engaged with a number of stakeholders, including from the gambling industry, as part of the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central also raised Gibraltar. Of course we recognise that Gibraltar has a gambling industry that very much faces the UK. I can assure him that there has been engagement, not by me, but by some of my colleagues in the Treasury, with Gibraltar to that end.

Clause 1

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending a Westminster Hall debate focused on farming and farmers in Northern Ireland. It was a good, productive debate, and I took away many of the points raised. The hon. Member will know that the Government have made a change to increase the threshold.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Given that the hon. Member called that debate, I will.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Minister for attending that debate. He noted during it that he might meet the Ulster Farmers’ Union, but, sadly, that has not happened. The Government have been tone deaf for the last 14 months on this issue, and when the Ulster Farmers’ Union and each of the unions across this United Kingdom told them of the wrong that they were doing, they did not listen. In the wake of all this, would he meet the Ulster Farmers’ Union to discuss its outworkings?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am sure that Environment Ministers will continue to engage with farming unions and farming representatives. Both in the run-up to the Budget and subsequently, Treasury Ministers and those from other Departments have engaged with farmers, and we will continue to do so, to support farmers in a way that the previous Government never did.

Individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and the figure will be fixed at that level until April 2031, alongside other inheritance tax thresholds, as we have been debating. Any unused allowance can be transferred to a surviving spouse or civil partner, including where the first death is before 6 April 2026. On top of that amount, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%. We are also reducing the maximum rate of business property relief available from 100% to 50% for shares designated as not listed on the markets of registered stock exchanges. The reliefs sit alongside other exemptions and nil rate bands. This means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax-free between them. That is on top of existing allowances, such as the nil rate band.

Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on the relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, interest-free. This benefit is not seen elsewhere in the inheritance tax system, and it means that the relief continues to be more generous than it was for the vast majority of the 20th century. In fact, from April 2026, the reliefs will be more generous than they ever were under, for example, Margaret Thatcher’s Government.

Our reforms are expected to result in a total of up to 1,100 estates across the UK paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Only up to 185 estates across the UK claiming APR, including those also claiming BPR, are expected to pay more in the next tax year. This means that around 85% of such estates will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27. Excluding estates holding shares designated as not listed on the market of registered stock exchanges, only up to 220 estates across the UK only claiming business property relief are expected to pay more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We have spoken about that issue with Ministers; is an important conversation that we absolutely have to have.

Another of my farms belongs to a constituent who was one of the first to reach out to me and meet me in London. I have spoken about his farm in previous debates; it is a partnership between husband, wife and mother. Under the original plans, he would have faced a liability of £130,000 when the mother passed away in coming years, but thanks to Government amendment 24 the liability is completely removed, allowing them to focus on profitability.

I also have a significant number of family-owned businesses in my constituency, including Massey Feeds, which happens to supply the agricultural sector. Its people made a really strong point to me when I met them last year; if they had had to downscale to afford the original proposed changes to BPR, their main option would have been to sell one of their company’s three sites to a foreign-owned competitor. Although we welcome foreign investment in this country, it does nothing for our sovereignty, growth or innovation when the proceeds and hard work of British-built companies end up as profits in other countries. After the announcement in December, I was delighted to hear from the owner, Kynan Massey, who thanked this Government for listening and for adapting the BPR thresholds. He told me that the recent change means that the business has the confidence to continue to invest, including with a £2 million investment to grow the capacity of its site in my constituency.

Gazegill farm in my constituency has been in the same family for 500 years and has an estimated value of just over £4 million. It employs 39 full-time equivalents through its organic farm, its award-winning restaurant Eight at Gazegill—I recommend that everyone visiting Lancashire should try it out; it is the best farm-to-fork experience in the country—and its growing farm shop. Emma and Ian, who run Gazegill, are the perfect example of ambitious and innovative company owners, working hard to regenerate and bring new employment and tourism to parts of Lancashire that will really benefit from new investment. The new changes to APR will allow them to push ahead with that investment, including by building a new farm shop later this year.

If we are serious about supporting small businesses across our regions, about local sustainable economies and about improving the health of this country, farms like Gazegill are exactly the type of companies we should support to grow. I wholly support Government amendment 24 to ensure significant protection and support for business owners like Emma and Ian and all the incredible farms in Ribble Valley, which I am so proud to represent.

[Carla Lockhart]

I rise to speak about the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in clause 62 and schedule 12. I do so having stood shoulder to shoulder with farmers from my constituency of Upper Bann, from across Northern Ireland and from across this entire United Kingdom; they have lobbied, protested and spoken with one voice in defence of their livelihoods and their family farms since the tax grab was announced. It has been my greatest honour to come alongside and fight this battle with them. It is because of their persistence that we have seen any movement at all from this Government.

While I acknowledge that the increase in the inheritance tax threshold to £2.5 million represents a concession, it is a hard-won one. It was not offered freely; it was forced by the strength and unity of the farming community and by the courage of the minority on the Back Benches of the Labour party. Even so, it remains wholly insufficient and fails to address the fundamental unfairness that remains embedded in the Bill.

Ultimately, we on the DUP Benches—indeed, Members rights across the Ulster Benches—want to see this policy scrapped in totality. That is why I support amendment 3 and the linked amendments 4 to 23, which would delay the commencement of these changes to 1 March 2027. Farming families planned succession responsibly and in good faith under the rules as they stood; changing those rules mid-stream is unjust and destabilising, and it undermines confidence across the entire sector.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend my hon. Friend for all that she has done in this campaign; she was very much to the fore. I also commend the Ulster Farmers’ Union on the stance that it took—it never gave in and stood its ground the whole way through, as did the NFU across Scotland, England and Wales. She has farmers in her constituency, as I do in mine, and some 25% of farmers who own farms in Northern Ireland will not benefit from the changes. Some of those farmers are my neighbours, and they have been farming for generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to this legislation, the Minister is duty-bound to meet the Ulster Farmers’ Union to discuss these matters?

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, 25% will still be hit, including some world-class producers in Northern Ireland. The dairy sector will be hit hardest because of our land values, which I will speak about now.

New clause 7 seeks to address a glaring omission in the Government’s approach: the failure to index-link or uprate the APR allowance. Agricultural land values have risen sharply over many years. In recent months, land in my constituency of Upper Bann was sold for £32,000 per acre, demonstrating the value of land in Northern Ireland and the impact that this Bill will have on our farms. Those land values do not arise from the effort of the farmer, and farm incomes have not kept pace. A static threshold in a rising land market guarantees that more and more family farms will be dragged into the inheritance tax net year after year. Index-linking is not radical; it is common sense—something that this Government appear to be lacking.

In the same spirit, I also want to highlight amendment 43, which would retain 100% business property relief where a property has been owned for at least 10 years as part of a genuine, actively operated family business. It recognises long-term stewardship and intergenerational responsibility, and it draws a clear distinction between established family enterprises and short-term or speculative ownership. If the Government’s aim is—as they have stated—to target avoidance rather than to punish genuine businesses, then this amendment deserves serious consideration.

There is a profound unfairness at the heart of this policy, which the Government have yet to explain or justify. A single farmer receives a £2.5 million threshold, while a married couple can pass on £5 million free of inheritance tax. Two identical farms of identical value can face vastly different tax outcomes purely on the basis of their ownership structure.

[Robin Swann]

That is an important point, and one that the Minister needs to clarify. The Government’s online advice actually says that it is not simply a married couple or those in a civil partnership; it says:

“Two people (such as siblings) who jointly own a farm will be able to pass on a farm up to £5.65 million tax free.”

The Government have to provide clarity on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

Much clarity is needed, and I trust we will get that clarity in today’s debate. A farm worth £5 million owned by a single farmer could face a tax bill of around £500,000, while a farm of the same value owned jointly would face no tax bill at all. That is not fair; it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Farmers are asset rich but cash poor. Many family farms exceed £2.5 million in value, and not because they are wealthy enterprises, but because land values have risen dramatically while margins remain tight and incomes volatile. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has outlined, an estimated 25% of farms in Northern Ireland fall above that threshold. Those farms are the backbone of our economy. The move from 100% relief to 50% relief above the cap is not a minor adjustment; it is a fundamental weakening of agricultural property relief. It risks forcing families to sell land, reduce the scale of their business or take on unsustainable debt—not because their farms have failed, but because their tax system has failed them.

I will quickly address new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish a Northern Ireland-specific impact assessment. That should not need an amendment; it should be done as a matter of course. But this sudden interest in farming by the Alliance party is not lost on the folks at home. Not only are farmers at home battling the Labour Government’s anti-farming policies, but they have an Alliance Farming Minister who is tone deaf to the needs of farmers—a Minister who supports climate change extremism, who is further regulating the industry, and who is blaming farmers for the algae bloom on Lough Neagh while ignoring the 200 million tonnes of waste from Northern Ireland Water. Farmers in Northern Ireland are getting it from all quarters, and I, for one, make no apology for standing up tonight against this tax grab, but also against the policies in Northern Ireland that are damaging our farms.

A clear principle is at stake. People are taxed throughout their lives on their income, on their profits and on what they produce. To then tax those same assets again, simply because someone has died, is a double whammy. It is double taxation in all but name, and it penalises families at the very moment of loss. That is a principle I cannot support. It is immoral. A death tax is immoral. This policy will drive despair—not prosperity—into farming communities if it is allowed to stand. The Government still have the opportunity to do the right thing. Politics is about doing the right thing, and the Minister knows that the right and honourable thing to do is to consign this policy to the farmyard manure heap. If the Government choose not to, they must accept the lasting damage that this policy will inflict on family farms, rural communities and our national security. The outcomes are on this Government’s shoulders.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

As someone who represents a large semi-rural constituency, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the changes to agricultural and business property relief and why they matter for farming families and for fairness in our tax system. I welcome these changes, which recognise the reality of the asset-rich, but cash-poor nature of farming, where land might be worth a lot of money by most people’s standards, but that value cannot be realised in cash terms unless it is sold, particularly for non-farming use.

The aim of this inheritance tax policy is simple: fairness for hard-working family farms, but no open-ended tax breaks for the wealthiest. The Government are reforming outdated tax relief rules to ensure that the very largest estates make a fair contribution. Under these changes, small and medium-sized agricultural estates will remain unaffected by inheritance tax, with full relief still applying up to £2.5 million for an individual, rising to £5 million for a married couple, who will be able to transfer their allowances to each other, as is the case for personal inheritance tax. I am slightly surprised that those on the Conservative Benches are only now discovering that concept, given that it has been standard for many years.

What will change is the ability for the ultra-wealthy and the very largest estates to use agricultural land as a tax planning tool, driving up land prices and shutting out genuine farmers, while making little or no contribution in return. The farmers I have spent time with—over many meetings in village halls, at farmhouses and at the Westmorland county show, which I highly recommend—were clear that they understood the need to prevent the ultra-wealthy avoiding tax, but they were rightly concerned that the threshold of £1 million, as originally proposed, would inadvertently catch ordinary family farms. Local farmers and solicitors were extremely generous in sharing their financial information with me, which was sent directly to the Treasury. It showed the reality of the finances of farming.

I must make special mention of a local Labour party member, Karenna Caun, who organised for that information to be gathered and who helped me to reach out to farmers and related businesses, particularly in the Lune valley. The NFU and others have already recognised that these changes materially improved the position for farming families. These changes have taken on board concerns raised by rural Labour MPs, but with these reforms targeted at the biggest estates, the Government expect to raise £300 million a year by the end of the decade. That is money we can put into local GP services, rural bus services and village schools, giving our children the best start in life. Yes, some of the largest estates will pay more after these changes.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report—we had a bit of extra time to read it this year. He will know that according to that report, investment—both overall, whole-economy investment and private sector investment—has outpaced the OBR’s forecast from March this year. I look forward to returning to those points later.

The Budget delivers choices that were fair and necessary—choices that deliver on the public’s priorities, and that bring about the change that this Government promised. This Government have chosen to cut the cost of living, delivering £150 off energy bills and freezing train fares and prescription charges. This Government have chosen to cut NHS waiting lists, delivering 5.2 million more appointments and announcing in the Budget 250 new neighbourhood health centres. This Government have chosen to lift 550,000 children out of relative poverty in this Parliament, by removing the two-child limit, and by expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meal eligibility.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Government have chosen to absolutely decimate family farms across the whole United Kingdom. The Prime Minister was questioned yesterday by members of the Liaison Committee, and he was told that farmers have said that they might be better off dying before this tax change comes in. I feel that we need to let the reality of that sink in. His response was that Governments have to bring about sensible reform, but sensible reform is not someone lying in an early grave to avoid the break-up of their family farm. He also claimed that this policy was not targeted, and was merely a change to the tax regime, but when this Finance Bill decimates family farms, it certainly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention is far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. This Budget has an impact not only on our farming community, but on the wider agricultural supply chain and the many businesses that support our farming community. Why? Because bringing in a threshold of £1 million will impact nearly every family farming business.

Let us look at the figures. The average size of a farming business in England is about 200 acres. When valuing farmland, there may be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, livestock, agricultural machinery, growing crops and crops in store, which will put it well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing the farming business to an IHT liability that kicks in at 20% of the value over and above £1 million. The Government will say that they have permitted some allowances, but that does not take into account the value of those businesses. This is going to have a hugely detrimental impact not only on those family businesses, but on the wider agricultural supply chain.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Member is passionate about this issue, and I commend him for the stand that he has taken. I know that he is an expert on valuation. Does he agree that Northern Ireland will be harder hit because of the land valuations and the price of land in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I want to begin by endorsing and agreeing with the very articulate and passionate contributions from Members right across the House. It is encouraging that there have been speeches from those on the Labour Benches attacking the cruel death tax on family farms—that is the only way to describe it. It is cruel, no matter what way you look at it.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) laid it out very clearly, as indeed he did yesterday in the Liaison Committee when he put the Prime Minister on the spot and the Prime Minister had no answer. A Prime Minister with no answer needs to change course. The Government have lost the argument on this issue. It is no answer to simply say, “We have the numbers to drive it through”. This needs to be done on the basis of equity and what is right. Having lost that argument—and so patently lost it—they need to face up to that. Just as the Prime Minister lost the argument yesterday in the Liaison Committee, so the Government need to face up to that point on this issue as well.

I want to make some comments about the Bill that are particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland. In any fiscal landscape, critical to being a part of a United Kingdom is the reasonable expectation that there will be the same fiscal ground rules across that United Kingdom—that if business is given advantage in one part, it will equally have that advantage in another. Yet when I come to this Finance Bill, particularly clauses 13 to 15, I discover to my dismay that businesses in Northern Ireland are not to have the same advantages when it comes to the capacity to scale up, as is provided for in clauses 13 to 15 regarding enterprise investment schemes, venture capital projects and enterprise management incentives. That is because the hideous tentacles of the Windsor framework have reached right into this Bill.

Because of the Windsor framework’s imposition on Northern Ireland business of EU state rules, we find in clauses 13 to 15 the exemption of Northern Ireland companies from the advantages to be given to others under those clauses. That removes the fiscal level playing field that should operate in any UK internal market. That undermines the UK internal market, because under those clauses companies in Great Britain will rightly be able to maximise state aid so that they can maximise their trading power, but an alike company in Northern Ireland has the benefit it can obtain from those scaling-up opportunities capped by EU state aid rules. That means they are not on a level playing field when it comes to competitiveness in respect of the capabilities in the Finance Bill.

That causes me to challenge the declaration that the Bill has no effect on GB-Northern Ireland trade. It most patently does if some companies in GB can scale up using these enhanced benefits from investment and venture capital unfettered by any state aid rules, while the same type of company in my constituency has the benefit it can draw fettered by the imposition of EU state aid rules. That is neither fair nor right, and it is but the latest manifestation of the Windsor framework and our continuing subjection to foreign laws.

These are not laws that we make here. EU state aid rules are not set here; they are set in a foreign Parliament that no one in this United Kingdom elects by a combination of Ministers from 27 other countries who have no accountability to anyone in my constituency or any constituency in this Parliament—and yet those rules are traducing and impeding business in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is making a passionate contribution, and he is absolutely right. In truth, clauses 13 to 15 all increase support for businesses across the UK, apart from those in Northern Ireland. It is not that we have been overlooked; the clauses expressly, explicitly and deliberately exclude us. That amounts to discrimination. It has to end.

[Jim Allister]

It has to end. It is discrimination at the behest of a foreign power. It is Brussels saying, “You must impose state aid rules on Northern Ireland.” The product of that in these clauses is a foreign Parliament dictating to this Parliament what we can and cannot give to our own businesses in this United Kingdom. That is so fundamentally offensive to our constitutional integrity that it goes to the very heart of what it means, or what it should mean, to be part of a United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

As I said earlier, the proposals made by CenTax and others in relation to agricultural property relief would result in twice as many farms paying more tax as are planned to do under the Government’s proposals. We think our proposals are right and fair.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Asylum accommodation costs are set to quadruple in Northern Ireland, from £100 million to £400 million, and across the UK to £15.3 billion in the next decade. Before hiking taxes again, should the Chancellor not look at where the waste really lies, when we are funding an asylum system that is failed, chaotic and expensive? This is not racist or far-right; it is looking after our own citizens who cannot pay their bills.

[James Murray]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should reduce the cost of asylum accommodation. Indeed, that is why our commitment to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament is so important.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farming in Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate on an issue that cuts right to the heart of rural Northern Ireland and indeed Britain.

The proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will have devastating consequences for family farms across our nation. Agriculture is not just another sector in our economy; for Northern Ireland it is our very foundation. It sustains our rural communities, feeds over 10 million people annually, underpins our agrifood industry and provides work for tens of thousands of families. I make no apology for repeating a comment that I have made previously, and that my grandfather tells me every Sunday at the dinner table: if the farmer is not doing well in this country, no one is.

In Northern Ireland we have over 26,000 farms. They form the backbone of our rural life—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for that point. She is absolutely right to underline the impact on family farms of the Chancellor’s proposals. In tandem with decisions being made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland, they will leave many farmers feeling that their generational family farms have no future. My hon. Friend will probably have seen “Countryfile” on Sunday. It highlighted two things for farmers: first, the mental health impact and that there have been suicides; secondly, the generational loss of the farms. If farms are not working, they are not viable, do not produce the food and the impact is great. The Government really need to sit down, take account of where we are and change the decision.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent voice on this issue. I will come to “Countryfile” later in my speech.

The vast majority of our farms in Northern Ireland are family run, often handed down proudly through several generations. The farm is not just a business: it is a home, a heritage and a legacy. That is why any policy that affects how farms are passed on to the next generation goes to the very core of who we are as rural people. For many families, the dream is simple: to see the next generation take over, work the same land and continue the proud tradition of stewardship. The reality of that dream is now under threat like never before.

Agricultural property relief has existed for a reason. It recognises that farming is asset-rich but cash-poor, or as we would say in Northern Ireland, “We are asset-rich but penny-poor.” A farm may be worth millions on paper, but that value is tied up in land, livestock, machinery, buildings and—most concerningly for many farmers—debt. Farmers spend money and they thrive in advancing. But for what—when they see what this Government are doing to them?

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

With over 26,000 farms in Northern Ireland, the value of farmland is incredibly high, if not higher, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that the negative impacts of changes to APR and BPR on Northern Ireland farmland will be much higher for those farming families than anywhere else across the United Kingdom?

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member. I thank him for using his intervention to speak up for Northern Ireland farmers, because they will be hard hit because of the land values.

When a farmer dies, there is not the liquid cash available to meet a large inheritance tax bill. That is precisely why successive Governments introduced and retained APR, so that farms would not have to be sold off bit by bit, just to pay the tax man. It was a recognition that the nation needs farms to continue and not be broken up at the point of succession. The change is being dressed up as modernisation or rebalancing, but in reality it is an attack on the very concept of family farming. I am pleased to say that colleagues from every party in Northern Ireland have been absolutely united in our opposition to the policy.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although the Government say that the effect of the inheritance tax on farms will be pro-growth, it will actually be anti-growth? In order to prepare for the day when a huge tax bill will have to be met, rather than investing in growing their enterprise, farmers are holding back so that they can hopefully make some contribution towards the exorbitant demands that are made upon death.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is right; the policy is stifling growth. As I have said before, farmers want to advance and grow, and they want to spend money.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. To follow up on the previous intervention, I wonder whether she has noticed in Northern Ireland, as I have in Cumbria, that farmers are holding money back. If they need a drystone wall fixing, they are not paying for that. If they need a new tractor, they are not investing in it. If they need to upgrade a barn for animal welfare purposes, they are not doing it. The policy is damaging not only farms but the rural communities that service those farms, and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, constricting growth.

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member. I need to give way to the leader of my party at this point.

[Gavin Robinson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is quite right that she took the last two interventions because she was talking about cross-party support for Northern Ireland farms. She is blessed to have a constituency with some of the most fertile and therefore valuable agricultural land in Northern Ireland, with an average of around £30,000 per acre. Although there may be a policy intention in relation to the industrialisation of farms or people shielding their wealth through farms, would she like the Government to recognise that that is not the case in Northern Ireland, and even a small family holding of 30 acres could get caught by the policy change?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. It does not take much arithmetic to work out the facts of that scenario.

In a recent joint letter to the Chancellor, signed by all MPs and peers from Northern Ireland, we set out a clear position:

“Agriculture is not simply an economic sector; it is a way of life. The removal or restriction of Agricultural Property Relief will place an unfair and unsustainable burden on family farms, jeopardising their ability to pass on their farms to the next generation and threatening the future of family farming.”

Those are not my words alone. They are the voices of rural Northern Ireland, speaking in unison in the House today.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate that focuses specifically on Northern Ireland. Does she agree that what the Treasury and the Government have missed in the proposal is the unique nature of farms in Northern Ireland, where 99% are actually family owned? Even that promise of the opportunity to spread the tax bill over 10 years restricts families who want to invest in their farms, and puts pressure on not only the older generation who are concerned about the farm they are leaving, but the younger generation who are looking to the future.

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member.

According to an estimate from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, the policy will impact a third of all farms and three quarters of dairy farms. Think about that for a moment. Three quarters of our dairy farms—the heart of our agrifood export industry—could be hit by a tax change that would make succession financially impossible.

The knock-on effects will be vast. Meat factories will face reduced throughput and rising costs, forcing scale-back and possibly relocation. Feed and supply companies will see demand collapse, threatening jobs and investment. It is not just farms that will be hit, and this is not a matter of large estates or wealthy landowners. The average Northern Ireland farm is about 40 hectares. Land values in some counties, including my own, are in excess of £30,000 per acre. It does not take much arithmetic to see that many modest family farms would easily surpass the £1 million threshold.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point about the impact on Northern Irish farms, and a similar thing will happen in South Norfolk. I would like to present solutions to this problem. I posit—and she may want to comment on this later on—that the Centre for Tax Reform’s policy would actually raise the amount of income for the Treasury by 71%. I also encourage the hon. Lady to look at separating APR and BPR, pausing the process and looking at whether we can raise revenues and protect the family farm.

[Carla Lockhart]

I commend the Member for the stand he is taking and for encouraging the Minister in this way. We are not talking about millionaires; we are talking about hard-working family farmers who live modestly and work from dawn to dusk to feed us all. If these proposals proceed, we will inevitably see forced sales of land simply to pay the tax liability when a family member dies. That means the fragmentation of farms, the loss of viable holdings and the disappearance of many small-to-medium sized family farms.

The Government talk about a fair and balanced approach, but what about the 80-year-old who has not got time to plan? Did my brother think my dad would pass away at age 66? Absolutely not. Does a family think they are going to lose a son or a daughter at age 40, 41 or 42? They do not.

This will deter young farmers from taking on the responsibility of a business that leaves them saddled with debt before they have even begun. We cannot afford to drive the next generation away from farming. Once that chain of succession is broken, it is almost impossible to restore.

This debate is not just about fairness for rural families: it is about food security, which is a matter of national importance. We have learned through recent global shocks—the pandemic, supply-chain disruption and now inflationary pressures—that domestic food production is essential. To undermine family farming through ill-judged taxation would be a profound mistake that this Government will rue. Certainly, rural MPs will rue it in the days and weeks to come. It would make us more dependent on imports and less resilient to crisis, while sending a terrible message to those who feed our nation.

The policy is being advanced in the name of fairness, but there is nothing fair about it. Farming families have worked their land for generations, paid their taxes and cared for the countryside. They are not speculators; they are custodians. APR is not, as it is presented in public discourse, a loophole; it is a lifeline that allows farms to pass from parent to child without having to be broken apart. To impose a new tax burden at the point of bereavement is not reform; it is punishment for choosing to farm.

Let us be clear: the yield from this policy—even in Treasury terms—would be marginal compared to the cost it would impose on rural communities and the wider economy. In short, it is bad economics and bad morality. Across Northern Ireland, opposition to this proposal is widespread and heartfelt. From the Ulster Farmers’ Union, who are here today, the National Sheep Association and the Dairy Council to the agrifood processors, the message is the same—this change must be reconsidered.

At rallies and meetings across my constituency and beyond, farmers have told me they feel under siege, squeezed by rising costs, regulatory pressures and now this looming tax threat. They want the Government to work with them, and not against them, which is why I have described this policy as a “farm tax heist”. That is how it feels to those who have given their lives to feeding our people.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to understand that Northern Ireland represents around 3% of the population of the UK, but produces a multiple of that in terms of food produce for the rest of the United Kingdom? If that was recognised, there might be more recognition in terms of what she is trying to achieve through this debate.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pause, and engage in genuine consultation with the farming community. Sit with us and talk to us. They have refused every meeting request.

We need a review that recognises the unique structures of Northern Ireland farming, made up of predominantly family-run farms and regional variations. Many suggestions have been made that are worth exploration, including in the latest Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report, as has been noted. I am not saying that it is a silver bullet, but we should sit down, talk about it and start to engage in the conversation.

At its heart, this debate is about how we as a society value those who feed us. We speak often in this House about sustainability and food strategy, but sustainability begins with sustaining the people who produce our food. We cannot say we care about the environment and rural life on one hand and on the other make policies that threaten to strip families of the land they have cared for over generations. I say to the Exchequer Secretary, with the full force of rural Northern Ireland behind me: think again. Listen to the voices of those who know the land and who understand the realities of farming life. Do not create a policy that will devastate small family farms in pursuit of a marginal tax return. Agriculture is a national asset, not a target for revenue generation.

The changes to agriculture property relief are not reform. They are an attack on our family farming. They form part of a wider Labour agenda that is anti-rural, anti-farmer and anti-common sense. That is how it is seen out in rural Britain, and it is somewhat similar to the direction of travel of our own Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland. While our producers face rising costs and red tape, Labour’s response is more tax and more barriers. Their net zero plans are driving good farmland out of production and into solar panels and their planning rules are choking rural life and pushing young families off the land.

On national TV this week, the reality was laid bare. I can still see Charles Rees in my mind as he said

“if something doesn’t change by next April I’d probably top myself.”

If that does not send a shiver down every spine in this place today, we are not in touch with the public. I ask Labour to stop, halt, talk to us, engage, get it right. Do not go on this collision course. I urge the Government to scrap this farm tax and rethink.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I do not agree that £1 million is nothing. It is a significant increase and a significantly higher threshold than that for anyone who does not have access to APR or BPR. I understand the point about land values in Northern Ireland, but at the same time, as far as I am aware, farms in Northern Ireland are smaller than those elsewhere. It is also worth bearing in mind that the £1 million relief comes on top of the spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands, so, depending on individual circumstance, up to £3 million can be passed on by two people, free of inheritance tax, and, as has been mentioned, the payment can be spread over 10 years, interest free. That policy design is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.

[Carla Lockhart]

The Minister is certainly sticking to the script, but can he give us even an opening through the door of the Treasury? Will he open that door and speak with the farming unions across the nation?

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

That was the point I was making when I asked the Minister whether there is an established methodology to make sure that the valuation of companies reflects the current situation.

This change does not target the ultra-wealthy or global conglomerates. In many parts of the UK even modest enterprises, especially those with land and equipment, which are often the biggest local employers, exceed the £1 million relief cap. Unlike large corporations, family businesses cannot just offshore ownership structures or use complex tax arbitrage to avoid the costs.

I am sure that every Member present, including the Minister, agrees that preserving the businesses at the heart of our communities should be the Government’s priority, not erecting barriers that create an environment too toxic for family businesses to survive. Will the Minister consider raising the relief cap to £2 million, as requested by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network? That would make more family businesses exempt from this dangerous inheritance tax, thereby protecting jobs and local businesses.

The reality is that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment, and according to estimates by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will raise only around £1.8 billion over a four-year period. That amount comes with a high uncertainty rating, because behaviour change might alter it significantly, and it cannot be compared with the £27 billion of VAT, late PAYE and national insurance that HMRC is yet to collect.

Forcing family businesses to reduce investment, withdraw capital, dispose of assets or sell or shut their business entirely to release cash to fund inheritance tax liability will weaken the competitiveness of not only the businesses themselves, but the wider UK economy. The changes may be well-intentioned, but they are misdirected in their execution. They risk treating genuine business owners in the same way as passive investors, and in doing so they ignore the fact that these reliefs were originally designed to protect the continuity of real working businesses in real communities.

In conclusion, will the Minister consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses—

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. Before she closes, it is important for us just to home in on the figures. A Family Business UK report shows that in my constituency the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will result in a £23.63 million reduction in gross value added and the loss of 381 full-time equivalent jobs, as well as being the end of many family farms. Multiplying those figures out across the United Kingdom means the loss of 208,000 jobs, a £14.8 billion reduction in GVA and a net fiscal loss to the Government of £1.9 billion. Does she agree that the death tax is immoral and should be scrapped?

[Susan Murray]

I certainly agree that we need to protect our family-owned businesses and do everything we can to help them to thrive, rather than putting them in a position whereby the economy is at risk of losing both jobs and growth.

I will finish the question that I was putting to the Minister. Will he consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses, and make the transfer of shares in a family business to the next generation exempt from inheritance tax for seven years, provided that the business is not sold in that period? If it is sold within that period, inheritance tax would become payable, along with the capital gains tax, both of which could be funded from the proceeds of the sale.

This Government have stated that growing the UK economy is essential, but attacking the backbone of the economy—the family businesses that have proved they can adapt and change rapidly to meet changing market needs and conditions, and that support supply chains and local jobs—must not happen. Family businesses should be supported, not raided for a relatively de minimis gain to the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced reforms to speed up clinical trials to ensure that the best new drugs can come to this country, benefiting from our NHS. On the issue of mental health treatment, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of addressing that, both for the health and wellbeing of individuals and because of the economic benefit that he speaks to. I am happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

On 30 October, the Chancellor upended our economy through tax rises and punitive death taxes. She has delivered a devastating blow to family farms and small family businesses—the very backbone of our economy. When will the Chancellor recognise that she is elected by the people, for the people? Every day that she avoids engaging with the farming community is another day of wilful neglect. Our farmers are being driven out, not by market forces but by a Government blind to their struggles and deaf to their voices. When will she listen and speak with them?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Lady and I have discussed in several debates in recent months, the decision we took on agricultural property relief and business property relief was difficult, but it was the right and balanced one to ensure we protect family farms and small businesses while fixing the public finances in a fair way. Fixing the public finances is in the interest of every Member of this House and all the constituents we represent, because it underpins the investment we are putting into the future of this country and into getting the economy growing.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

No, I will make some progress. The Government want to shift healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Southern Area hospice, which is located just outside my constituency, has to raise £3.6 million per year, or £300,000 per month. It is not Government funded, as has been mentioned, so what reassurance can the Minister give to those currently using Southern Area hospice for end of life care that the Government will do the right thing and support our hospices by not including them in the increase to national insurance contributions?

[James Murray]

I have explained how the Government are approaching employer national insurance contributions and the support that they offer for central Government, local government and public corporations. That is an established way of responding to changes to employer national insurance contributions, which the previous Government did—

Family Businesses

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The data that I refer to is based on claims data. This is an important point that comes up frequently when we have debates on agricultural property relief and business property relief. If one were to consider assets owned by farmers or other business owners, the actual value of the asset does not give a guide to what claim might be made against inheritance tax because that will depend on the ownership structure, on debt that might be owned or on what inheritances have happened earlier in people’s lives and so on. The only data that can give an indication of what impact the changes will have from April 2026 is the claims data.

The data that I referred to earlier and which I referred to in response to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is the real claims data that HMRC has. That is the data on which we made decisions around this policy and which informs some of the Chancellor’s statistics in her response to the Treasury Committee, which the hon. Lady may like to consult.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the Agriculture Department has indicated that almost half of all farms, and 75% of all dairy farms, will be impacted by the inheritance tax. When will the Minister start to speak with, and listen to, industry leaders? Quite frankly, the meeting last week was an outrage. He needs to sit and listen to industry leaders, who know the industry and are speaking on behalf of real farmers on the ground who will be impacted by this inheritance tax.

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady referred to meetings that I held last week, both with representatives of UK-wide organisations and those that represent other nations within the UK. There is a difference between listening to people and having to agree, because sometimes we listen and we disagree. That is the situation we found ourselves in after that meeting—we listened to concerns but we have a different approach. I have been setting out in this debate exactly why we have taken this decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats about family businesses, because they are so important and make a distinct contribution to our economy and to their local communities. Family businesses are synonymous with quality, trust and reliability. Family businesses have a strong sense of stewardship of their craft, their capital and their customer base. By their very nature, family businesses have the goal of nurturing their business to pass through to the next generation and, as a result, have a vested interest in long-term decisions, the stability of the economy and building a resilient community.

Where family businesses are located on high streets, they are often the anchor stores, bringing back loyal customers time and again. Family businesses are present in every part of the UK. Indeed, they are often the largest employer in a region and the largest philanthropic organisation in those communities, too. But in tabling the motion, the official Opposition do not seek to acknowledge or accept the damage that they have done to family businesses over the years. [Interruption.] If the official Opposition are patient, they will realise that I will not pull my punches when addressing the Government, but it is an Opposition day debate, so let me continue to outline the litany of mistakes that have occurred over the years.

The Conservatives scrapped the industrial strategy, which was the bedrock of long-term planning. They failed to reform the broken business rates system, which has hammered family businesses on the high street. They starved family businesses of seasonal workforces, which many of them need. Their botched Brexit deal has deprived many family businesses of access to European markets, raising trade barriers for imports and exports, and wrapped them up in reams of red tape. They wreaked havoc with their mini-Budget, making access to finance too expensive for many, and they failed to address the soaring energy costs and broken energy market that has resulted in many small family businesses suffering from extortionate energy contracts and being frozen out of the best deals.

That is why it is disappointing to see that the Labour Government are making some of the same mistakes. The national insurance contributions rise is unnecessary. The Government could have raised that £10 billion through other, fairer means such as taxes on big corporations that have raised billions, using that money to put public services back on their feet.

The business rates proposals will be incredibly damaging for small businesses on our high streets. On a number of occasions in the House, I have invited Ministers to look at House of Commons Library research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats that shows that chains will continue to be subsidised by small independents. Of course, there are also the changes to APR and BPR, which will raise a relatively small amount of money for the Treasury but could be devastating to many small family businesses across the UK.

Family Business UK, which I met this morning, is urging the Government to run an impact assessment. It is conducting its own impact assessment in partnership with the National Farmers Union, where it intends to speak to more than 3,000 family businesses about the potential impact of these measures. May I invite the Minister either to intervene on me now or to say in responding to the debate whether the Government will meet Family Business UK to discuss the findings of its survey once it is complete?

We should not just think of family businesses as units for tax revenue. Family businesses are different. Family farms rightly grab the public’s imagination, but there is more than that. In my constituency of St Albans, I can think of many. Hedges Farm Shop is a much loved, family run, award winning farm shop, and its delicious meat is often on the menu of our award winning restaurants. Waterers tailors is run by two generations of the Masi family, providing bespoke, high quality tailoring and some especially fancy men’s jackets. Burston Garden Centre is a long-established family business with a lovely restaurant and is a fantastic place for a day out. We have beauty companies, building merchants and electric vehicle charger stores, all of which are family businesses. And one of my favourite pubs, too: The Boot, handed down from Will to his son Sean.

On the subject of pubs, what on earth is this absurd idea in the Opposition day motion that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will somehow put the British pint at threat? The pint is well and truly safe. [Interruption.] The pint is well and truly safe, something I am sure the entire House wants to hear. The pint is enshrined in law in the Weights and Measures Act 1985, so this scaremongering is just total nonsense. I am tempted to call it a load of old Codswallop, but I would not want to insult the makers of that very fine pale ale. I could instead accuse the Conservatives of scraping the barrel. Let us just say that the Conservatives’ claim that the pint will be abolished is as fanciful as Labour’s claim that punters will see a penny taken off the price of their pint. They won’t. Frankly, if the Opposition think they are standing up for pubs they need to think again. I say this not only as the MP for St Albans, where we have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, but also, I am proud to say, as the MP crowned last year as pub parliamentarian of the year. [Interruption.] I was, yes.

The last Conservative Government proved, unfortunately, that they did not know their firkin from their pin. They could not tell a kilderkin from a craft keg. Their defective attempt to introduce a draught beer relief ended up excluding the very small craft brewers they were claiming to help. When a former Conservative Prime Minister had the audacity to have a photo op with the casks that he had mistakenly left out of the draft duty relief support scheme, it was the Liberal Democrats who worked with publicans and small brewers to force that correction.

If the official Opposition want to pretend to stand up for the great British pub, they will need to do their homework. They should get out and speak to the struggling pubs and hospitality businesses that they have ignored. If the Conservatives want to continue with their pint-sized politics, it will be the Liberal Democrats who will continue to have the official Opposition well and truly over a barrel. Jokes aside, there are changes in the Labour Budget that are no laughing matter: the national insurance contribution changes and the reduction in business rates relief will deliver a hammer blow to our pubs. They will have no choice but to put up prices for punters and many more may be pushed to the brink.

[Carla Lockhart]

A joint survey by leading hospitality trade associations in Northern Ireland has revealed that 65% of hospitality businesses will reduce their employment levels, 55% will cancel planned investment, and 22% believe they will have to close their doors. The same can be said of retail because of the extra threat around big business and online sales and the fact that they get away in the smoke around taxation. Does the hon. Lady agree that there will be tumbleweed on our high streets, rather than the thriving high streets that the Minister suggested today?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising those points. Our high streets are the beating hearts of our communities all over the UK. There is real concern that when the national insurance contribution changes and the reduction in the business rates relief kick in, our high streets will be absolutely hammered and we may indeed see tumbleweed. That matters for two reasons: there will be an impact on our local economies and that could have a knock-on impact on people’s confidence. Many people with busy lives do not always get to follow headlines about growth, inflation, interest rates and all the rest, but they do look to their high streets as the primary signal of whether or not the economy is working for them and whether it is working in their local area.

In hospitality, of course, it is not just the increase in the national insurance contribution rates that will have an impact. The changes will also mean that many part-time workers will not be recruited to work in those businesses. That will impact in particular women, people from ethnic minorities and young people. Young people often work in hospitality as their first job. Often hospitality can give them the chance to work after something adverse has happened in their life. I think all of us in this House can say that we support hospitality, and it is vital that we continue to support it.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I will answer this point before giving way. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart): the electorate were sold false promises in the run-up to the general election. They were specifically told that this Labour Government would not change agricultural property relief, but that is exactly what the Government have done.

How will the Minister communicate with George? What will he tell George, based on the promises that were given in the run-up to the general election? I cannot believe how many times I have asked this, but will the Government commit to recording suicide statistics across the farming sector as we move closer to April 2026? If the Minister is so determined to carry on with his family farming death tax, will he at least look at changing the abruptness of the tax’s implementation, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our farming community? It cannot be right that this Government are forcing people to make those decisions.

Another point that has been made is that the tax also hits our next generation, the very young people we need to power our industry forward. What does the Minister say to Gemma, the granddaughter of a lifelong farmer who has been forced to split up the family’s farm, leaving their future in doubt? What does the Minister say to the thousands of young farmers up and down the country, many of whom are outside this building right now, who are in a similar situation because of this Government’s choices? I spoke to a few of them outside, before coming into this House. The same concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

Then there are the tenant farmers. About a third of agricultural land is farmed by tenants. I spoke recently to Tom, a tenant farmer who stands to lose not only his livelihood but his family home, as his landlords scramble to reduce their IHT liability before April 2026. The Tenant Farmers Association is already warning of the mass renegotiation of many agricultural tenancies ahead of the family farm tax kicking in. For the tenant farmers there is no protection, because the Government did not see fit to recognise their unique situation. Will the Minister recognise the injustice to which tenants like Tom are being exposed through this Government’s choices? Will he provide protections for those with tenancies and for the whole agricultural sector?

Many points have been made by Opposition Members, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who talked about the wider implications on our food sector. Just last week, I was at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, where I met a tractor dealer who is also in a family business and struggling to stay afloat. Why? Because confidence is draining from the farming sector, and orders for new tractors, machinery and equipment have reduced significantly.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his sterling work. He will know that early mornings, late nights, no holidays and low profit margins make up a typical day in the life of British farmers. They do it because they love the land, and they do it to feed our nation and sustain our rural communities. Does the hon. Member agree that this tax grab is a wrecking ball that will decimate our family farms? If Labour proceeds with it, it will have the death of rural Britain and rural Ulster on its hands. We need to stand up, stop this tax grab and ensure that the farmers outside this building today are heard in this place.