Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement—a £820 million boost in this Budget—that takes the total additional funding for the Scottish Government from this Labour Government to more than £10 billion.

I was talking about the entrepreneurship package in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) said, we are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the generous enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. We are making them more generous, and are supporting more investment in companies that are making the transition from start-up to scale-up, and we are not stopping there.

When some of our most innovative, high-growth companies succeed, bringing jobs and growth to our economy, we want them to list here, too. That is why this Bill ensures that companies that list here in the UK will benefit from a stamp duty holiday on their shares for the first three years on the market—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We are backing British entrepreneurs and ensuring that the UK remains one of the most attractive places in the world to found, scale and list a business.

Let me address the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) about the application of the measures that I have just spoken about to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that Northern Irish service companies will benefit from the expansion of the scheme, and goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the previous scheme limits.

[Jim Allister]

The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.

[Lucy Rigby]

I assure the hon. and learned Member, who makes a valid point, that there are hardly any—very few, if any—of these types of goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland that come close to the existing limits of the scheme, let alone the extended limits.

We are very clear about the role of business and economic growth in improving household incomes, but we are also clear that after the Opposition gave this country the worst Parliament on record for living standards, far too many people are still struggling with the cost of living. This Government are already making progress to tackle that. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Government. Real household disposable income was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament than in the last year under the Tories, but we know that there is more to do.It is because of the fair and necessary choices in this Bill that we are able to help ease the cost of living for millions of families across this country. Those choices are how we are cutting energy bills for millions of households by an average of £150 per year and extending the warm homes plan. They are how we are lifting the two-child cap and, with it, lifting half a million children in this country out of poverty. They are how we are freezing prescription charges and rail fares, and increasing the national living wage while protecting the triple lock on pensions. This is a Government who are committed to helping people with the cost of living, to putting more money in people’s pockets, and the choices we are making in this Bill do just that.

My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) are absolutely right that the choices this Government are making in this Finance Bill will help restore our public services. Those choices are why the Chancellor is able to put libraries in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, and they are why she is able to protect NHS budgets as well. They are why she is able to invest an extra £300 million in NHS technology, roll out 250 new neighbourhood health centres right across this country, and continue to get waiting lists—which stood at a record high when this Government came to power—back under control. That means millions more people able to access the healthcare they need, free at the point of use; millions more people getting the operations, preventive care and scans they need. It is how we will be able to repair our NHS and ensure it will continue to exist for the next generation and for many generations to come.

This Finance Bill is about delivering on our commitments. It is about building a stronger economy in which prosperity and living standards rise, child poverty falls, businesses succeed and public services are renewed. Every measure in this Bill is geared towards that goal. We promised change and fairness, and we are delivering both. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily look at any report any Member recommends I read, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to send it my way.

Since we took office, the Government have taken a range of decisions to seek to restore economic stability and raise revenue to help support our public services, because it was vital to attempt to sort out the mess we inherited, so that we can invest again in the future. The decision to reform APR and BPR was one of the decisions that enabled us to do that.

Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the very wealthiest estates. According to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 2021-22, almost half of agricultural property relief across the UK—40%—was claimed by just 7% of the estates that made claims. That is £219 million in tax foregone from just over 100 estates.

It is a similar picture for business property relief, which is linked and is treated in the same way under the reforms, with more than 50% of business property relief claimed by just 4% of estates. That is £558 million in tax foregone from just 158 estates. That contributes to the very largest estates paying much lower tax rates than smaller estates and everyday people up and down the country.

[Jim Allister]

In that context, does the CenTax report not make evident sense? If we impose the full-blooded inheritance tax on the top end—on those above £10 million—are we not reaping the same tax return, while at the same time not punishing and driving out of existence those at the bottom end? Is that not logical, and is that not right?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. and learned Member raises the CenTax report, and it is worth noting some points about the analysis in that report. First, the Government have consistently said that around 520 farms would be paying additional inheritance tax as a result of the reforms announced at the Budget last year.

Members from all parties have been turning to the CenTax report as an independent analysis of the Government’s reforms. That report agrees with us on the number of farms that will be affected. That independent analysis conducted separately from the Government comes out with the same conclusion on the number of farms that will be affected and it says that its proposal—the minimum share proposal, which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentions—would more than double the number of estates that would pay additional inheritance tax. I do not think the right way forward is to have the number of estates that would be affected increase from about 500 to, I think, about 1,200. I have looked at the report, which has been raised by Members from all parties, but I do not think it is the silver bullet that others have concluded it could be.

The context I just set out is why we are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April next year. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant relief for estates, including smaller farms and businesses. Individuals will still get 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. I know that Members know this, but it is worth setting out the position again. On top of that amount, there will be a 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a rate of up to 20% rather than the standard 40%.

Taxes

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

A substantial level of political knockabout is inevitable in a debate such as this, but when it degenerates to the Punch and Judy of “It’s your fault—yes it is!” and “No, it’s not!” it is not really doing anything for my constituents who live in the moment of this Government. Therefore, the debate should properly have a focus on what the Government are doing in respect of our economy.

In Northern Ireland, we have felt, and continue to feel, the brunt of many of those measures, some of which, such as the inheritance tax on family farms, are cited in the motion. I agree entirely with the analysis of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) as to the depth and long-term consequences that that is having on family farms.

However, I want to focus for a moment on the other side of the inheritance tax imposition: namely, business property relief, because that has not had the same attention but is having an equally detrimental effect on many businesses. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where we have the staggering statistic that 89% of our businesses are micro-businesses—in the UK, the figure is 23%—which translates into the reality that most of those businesses are small family businesses. Those small family businesses, by virtue of what is happening to them with business property relief, instead of planning for growth are now having to plan for death—for inheritance—which is having a suppressive effect on our economy.

We must add to that the fact that we in Northern Ireland live subject to the pernicious Irish sea border, with all the costs that that brings. I heard some hon. Members lamenting that we got Brexit. Well, I lament the fact that in Northern Ireland we did not get Brexit—we were left under the EU’s clutches and controls. Let me illustrate that with a practical example that has just come to light. As a result in Northern Ireland of our living under EU rules, we live under the general safety regulation, and that means that a purchaser in Northern Ireland who wants to buy a new car from a car salesroom in Northern Ireland will be charged £4,000 more than his counterpart in Great Britain. Why? It is because the GSR has to be met. That is but another illustration of how individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland are being oppressed by the lack of Brexit and the continuance of EU rules.

I have heard talk today about wonderful trade deals. Those wonderful trade deals mean that goods coming from those countries into Northern Ireland are treated as coming into the EU. Therefore, if there is a differential in tariff, they pay the EU tariff. Those tariffs would not be paid in GB if those goods had 0% tariffs, or they might have a 10% tariff, but if they are being brought from the US or India into Northern Ireland, the EU tariff will be paid.

Some say, “You can claim it back.” Well, if someone is willing to go through the hideous paperwork of a reclaim and they can prove that the goods they brought in will never end up across the border in the EU, they can eventually—maybe after a year—get a refund. What does that do for cash flow in any business? Those are the realities from Northern Ireland that the Government are refusing to face up to. They are causing trade diversion, yet the Government lamentably refuse to deal with that.

This motion carries considerable merit for me, in that it draws this Government’s attention to what they promised, and the contrast with what they are delivering is very substantial indeed. The Government might have a huge majority, but it is about governing well and not governing in whatever way takes their fancy or the fancy of their Back Benchers. They should do the job, do it right and do it right as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

Spending Review 2025

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he always passionately argues the case for Blackpool. Yes, there is deprivation in Blackpool, but there is also huge opportunity, which is why we are backing Blackpool with the investment we are putting in through the spending review.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored?

[Rachel Reeves]

Alongside the investment at Casement Park, we have also made record investment, with a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive, in the announcements we have set out today. In addition, there is substantial investment in the defence sector, including in Northern Ireland. So there is plenty of money going into Northern Ireland, and it now needs to be spent wisely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the invitation to join him in his constituency. I very much enjoyed the regional reception with business leaders, as I have done in every region and nation across the country during the spending review. We will continue to work hand in glove with them to unlock investment, create jobs and create growth for everybody, across the whole country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Earlier, when the Chancellor was talking about the impact of tariffs, she pledged that the Government would act in our national interest. How can it be in the whole national interest, so long as the trade laws governing Northern Ireland are not the trade laws of the UK but those of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU?

[Mr Speaker]

We have an urgent question shortly.

Spring Statement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. That is why we have not set a number for the reduction in the size of the civil service and instead have made it an admin target. We do not want the number of civil servants to fall and then the number of agency workers and consultancies to increase. Absolutely, this Government will learn from failed efforts, both of the UK Government under the Conservatives and other Administrations in the past.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I think one of the Conservative Members said that he will update me in his speech later. I may have misheard him, but I think I heard him say that he will confirm later whether the Opposition will reverse the national insurance changes we are making, so I look forward to that update.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care?

[James Murray]

The fundamental principle is about which organisations the Government will support in response to the changes to national insurance contributions. The approach the Government are taking, which is in line with the approach taken by the previous Government in the health and social care levy, is for the Government to provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), that means central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers are independent contractors and will therefore not be exempt from the changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time?

[James Murray]

Just two weeks ago, I spent a fair amount of time meeting representatives from the National Farmers Union and other representative organisations from different nations within the UK. I listened to their concerns and what they had to say. We have to be honest that we disagree. They do not agree with the Government’s policy, and I need to be direct about that because we had to take a number of difficult decisions at the Budget. But I do not apologise for the importance of balancing the public finances and sticking to our fiscal rules.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and to express my party’s frustration with the Government’s refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd, that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy. Under the current system, the profits generated from Wales’s vast natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where that wealth is created.

The Crown Estate in Wales is set to generate millions annually from offshore wind energy leases in Welsh waters. If this money were kept within Wales, it could contribute an estimated additional £50 million to the Welsh Government’s budget at a time when public services in Wales are crumbling. It is nothing short of outrageous that the Labour Government in Westminster seek to deny Wales these vital sources of income, which could help to address the crisis in our public services, economy and infrastructure. The Labour Government’s refusal to devolve these powers further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland.

While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets within its borders, has been left without those powers. The benefits of devolution for Scotland have been clear, with the Scottish Crown Estate generating over £103 million for the public finances since 2017. The excuses we have heard from the UK Government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from Ministers about how devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales’s “best interests” or would be a “waste of time” are frankly an insult to the people of Wales.

This Government claim to support growth, but they seem determined to keep Wales from reaching its full potential. Instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow directly to London. That is not the vision of growth to benefit local communities or level up left-behind communities; it is a continuation of the Conservatives’ failed economic model, which prioritises centralisation and investment in the south-east of England over everywhere else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities. I hope the Government will change their mind.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.

A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate; I will follow on from what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) seeks. I want to make a specific request, which I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell).

My issues with the provisions primarily relate to the fishing sector and the impact on fishing fleets around the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but particularly in Strangford for Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects Crown Estates in the entirety of the United Kingdom.

As the Library briefing outlines, the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. It manages the seabed and much of the coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, playing a

“fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.”

I am not against wind turbines and the green energy they produce, but I am concerned about the impact on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns and express my support for the fishing fleets at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, where fishing is an important economic sector, providing jobs and investment. That has been happening for hundreds of years, and I want to see that tradition maintained. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will reassure fishing communities that any development will not be to the detriment of the fishing sector.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems in this territory is that we do not yet have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable? On reading the Bill, it appears that the whole focus of what sustainable will be is on the green energy side, rather than what will sustain the fishing industry.

[Jim Shannon]

That is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, but I want to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector over the years. It has been sustainable and still provides jobs in Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I want it to continue to do so. That would be my concern as well.

The fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations brought about by Crown holdings on the coastline, and concerns have been expressed to me regarding the partnership announced by the Government for the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—the very issue that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refers to—to bring forward new offshore wind developments. I wholeheartedly welcome renewable energy and attempts to harness the reliable energy of our vast seas and loughs, but only inasmuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful. That must always be the key consideration. If we were to lose one of our primary sectors in fishing and to gain wind turbines and green energy, that would be something that the Government would have to consider sensibly.

Similarly, the regeneration and development department in my local Ards and North Down council has highlighted the additional red tape that comes from leasing or altering existing leases to the Crown Estate. That being said, the council is also thankful for the open doors and accessibility when needed. However, it has been seen that there is a willingness to consider the national needs when requests are made for alterations, and that is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we want to ensure that they do not take away from the local needs of those in Strangford, in Ards and North Down and in the fishing fleets and those who own land and farms around the Irish sea and Strangford lough.

During 2023-24, the Crown Estate generated a net revenue profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has returned £4.1 billion of net revenue profit to the Treasury. We must ensure that the Crown Estate is being run at ultimate capacity and is bringing money into our coffers, but also that it has a socially conscious operating model and that it is being used to do good for everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency.

I was very much inspired, as we probably all were, by the Prince of Wales’s scheme on homelessness, and by the fact that he is using his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, to build 24 homes to help tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes in Nansledan, Newquay, is due to be complete in autumn 2025. That good work should inspire us all to ensure that a Crown Estate operated by a team appointed by the Prime Minister attempts where it can to make such an impact for the common good.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I have heard no one in this debate defend the land-banking corporations, but I have heard many Members objecting to genuine farmers’ being treated in the same way as if they were the land-banking corporations. That is fundamentally wrong, and therein lies the basic flaw in this proposal.

It is useful to cast our minds back to why, 40 years ago, this concession was introduced. We were told at the time that it was for two reasons—two reasons that still apply today: to enable retention by the next generation, and to allow long-term planning without fear of a crippling death tax. Those two reasons were good then and they are equally good today.

Yet now we have arrived at a situation where the Government tell us—or some of its Members do—that they are bringing this policy in to chase the land-banking corporations, even though the policy, if implemented, will enhance the land banking of those corporations. It is the small, genuine family farms that will not be able to meet the tax and will sell—and who will the buyers be? The buyers will be the land-banking corporations. It is a self-defeating policy if that is its purpose, and it is a policy that will cripple many family farms.

The Government tell us, “Oh, it will affect only 500 farms a year.” The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association, a body of professional valuers, has done a massive piece of work on this and has concluded that, in Northern Ireland alone, 200 farms will be affected per annum. If the total is meant to be 500 in the UK and Northern Ireland, which represents only a 40th of this nation, can produce 200 in a year, it is quite clear that the Government are wholly wrong in their statistics and in their evaluation.

Frankly, my local farmers are not particularly interested in Labour chiding the Tories and the Tories chiding Labour about who did what when. They are interested in getting a solution. I say to this Government that strong government is not about driving a policy through because you have a big majority; strong Government is about doing what is right. It is patently right here to have the courage to acknowledge that this is a flawed policy and therefore the Government need to find reverse gear. I trust that they do.