Finance (No. 2) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The value of farming goes above and beyond successful businesses simply contributing to the economy in the traditional way. Farming also underpins our food security as a nation.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers in Parliament Square this afternoon, blasting their horns about the family farm tax. The shadow Chancellor and many other colleagues from the Opposition Benches have been out to meet the farmers to understand their concerns. Has he heard, like I have, their frustration at the Government’s failure to listen and understand the impact that the family farm tax will have on farm viability?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is right. I was out there this morning speaking to farmers, including a group up from Newbury, who have taken the trouble to come here to make exactly that case powerfully to us on the day of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, because the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is far greater than the average rate per acre in England or, dare I say, anywhere else in Great Britain. That is why Northern Ireland farmers are going to be absolutely decimated as a result of the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware of some research done by the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, which shows that, under the current inheritance tax rules, farmers in Scotland typically pay a £20,000 inheritance tax bill, whereas under Labour’s current proposals the figure goes up to a staggering £775,000, which will kill off most farming businesses?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was in Dumfries and Galloway just last week to speak to farming businesses that will be impacted by the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in. He hits on a very important point, because the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have over the past year continually tried to put forward progressive options for this Government to listen to and engage with, but they have not listened. That just shows the naivety associated with this Government. Indeed, at the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he was aware of farmers who have worked all their lives within the farming community and who are considering taking their own lives. Despite that knowledge, he wanted to crack on with this policy regardless. It is callous and heartless, and it just shows what this Government are about.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Since we came to office last year, we have reset our relationship with the EU, which is why last May we agreed with the EU an expansive set of changes to our relationship, including on food and farming, on electricity and energy trading, and on youth mobility and Erasmus. We are taking all that forward, but at the same time we are taking opportunities to trade more with fast-growing economies around the world, including India, and we also got the first, and the best, trade deal that anybody has secured with the US. That is how we are going for growth, alongside passing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last night in this place.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending the freeze on income tax thresholds on working people.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

18. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending freezes on income tax and national insurance thresholds on working people.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget that we are taking the fair and necessary decisions on tax to do all we can to ensure that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible. We have reduced the gap between taxes on income from assets and on income from work, stopped the unfairness that meant people could pay less council tax for a £10 million property than for a typical terraced house in much of England, and done much more.

[John Lamont]

There seems to be only one word that the Chancellor understands: tax. Her decision to continue the freeze on income tax thresholds is a hammer blow to working people. In fact, even one of the Chancellor’s favourite unions, Unison, has said:

“Freezing personal income tax thresholds disproportionately impacts lower and middle-income workers.”

Does the Chancellor agree with the Labour party’s union paymaster?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am a bit confused by that question. The hon. Member said there was one word that was important. Let me give him one figure: £150. That is the amount we are taking off energy bills next year to help people to deal with the cost of living in the here and now. We are supporting people because of the mistakes that previous Governments made by not investing in our energy infrastructure and not investing in our future. We are picking up the pieces after the Conservatives did not take the necessary decisions.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?

[James Murray]

As we said at the Budget, not only were we setting out to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing; we were also focusing on growth through public investment in transport, energy, roads, railways and all the infrastructure that businesses need to invest to boost jobs and growth across the country. We invested in every part of the country, with a focus on Wylfa in Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, because we know that growth has to happen right across the country to benefit people in every part of the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Government are delivering on the priorities of the British people. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 nation in the first quarter of this year. Since the election, this Labour Government have brought £120 billion of private investment into our economy. There have been four interest rate cuts, lowering the cost of mortgages, and 384,000 new jobs—more than 1,000 jobs a day—since this Government were elected. Real wages increased more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government, and we have a £1,400 pay rise for a full-time worker on the national living wage. That is the difference that this Government are making after 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives.

[John Lamont]

The award-winning bookshop and deli Mainstreet Trading Company in St Boswells has been forced to reduce its operating hours because

“increases to employer national insurance mean that our operating cost base has increased significantly.”

What advice does the Chancellor have for small businesses suffering because of this Labour Government’s reckless decisions?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, and that means 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all. Indeed, half of employers will either gain or see no change. It was also welcome that the Lloyds business barometer showed business confidence at a nine-year high, with a particular uptick in retail. I cannot comment on an individual business, but that is the system nationwide.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mohindra]

Once again, an hon. Member has pre-empted part of my speech. As the hon. Gentleman alludes to, the issue is not specific to the south-east, but occurs across the country. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister in her speech.

The situation is worse in other parts of my constituency. Many of my residents do not have access to any banking services on their high street. That is particularly the case in Abbots Langley where, in 2021, the Barclays branch closed, leaving residents in the town and surrounding area with no access to banking services. The issue matters greatly to people in my constituency. I joined forces with our local Conservative councillors, Vicky Edwards and Ian Campbell, to support a campaign to bring a banking hub to the post office on the high street. I met with the local postmaster and Vicky and Ian recently to discuss the value that would bring to constituents.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have had similar challenges in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Like him, I have been campaigning for banking hubs—in Selkirk and Eyemouth. Indeed, I presented a petition in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. The banking hub we have in Jedburgh is working very well, but part of the problem for getting new banking hubs is the criteria that Link uses to determine whether a community is suitable. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns, and will he put further pressure on the Minister to persuade Link to extend the criteria, so that more communities can get the benefit of banking hubs?

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. Part of my remarks today, and I am sure of others’ later in the debate, concerns that exact point about increasing flexibility. We must not create criteria for banking hubs that do not necessarily solve the problem; we are trying to solve access to cash and banking services for all our constituents, irrespective of where they live.

More than 1,300 residents have already signed a petition in support of our campaign in Abbots Langley for a banking hub. I continue to push hard for that to be achieved, as that area in my community would greatly benefit from a banking hub as an obvious solution to the current lack of access those residents have.

Returning to the importance of access to cash, it is essential that the key service provided by banks continues to be available to people. I appreciate that we are moving increasingly towards a cashless society. It is rare now to find a shop that does not accept card payments, or indeed accepts cash at all. The idea of carrying emergency cash may, for many of us, seem less common. As someone with a background in small business, I understand the importance of cash for small and medium-sized businesses. Although ATMs make cash available to the wider population, it is not the same as the face-to-face interaction that a banking hub provides. I am glad that the major banks have recently signed a five-year access to cash deal with the Post Office to allow free withdrawals and deposit of cash, but that is a small step compared with the need for the services that banking hubs provide.

Of small businesses, 28% use cash at least weekly, and with more than 5,500 small businesses in South West Hertfordshire, banking facilities are not a service they can go without. Ahead of the debate, I thought it was important to speak to local businesses in my area. I contacted businesses across Abbots Langley, Rickmansworth and Kings Langley for their views on banking services and the role that cash plays in their everyday business. Many of the businesses I engaged with supported banking hubs, because they regularly need to deposit cash. Business owners in Abbots Langley told me that because they have no access to banking services, they often have to travel long distances to Watford to deposit large amounts of cash, which is time-consuming and potentially unsafe. That would be solved if Abbots Langley had a banking hub.

Small business owners are not the only group affected by the digital exclusion that comes with the loss of high street banks. Nearly a third of people over the age of 65 across the UK say that they feel uncomfortable using online banking, particularly for large or delicate transactions. Some 19% of people in my constituency are over 65. Having a banking hub allows the elderly and vulnerable to feel more comfortable, because they can access and deal with their finances in person. It is great that people often feel that they can trust their postmaster. Again, this may be some of the only social interaction that many people have, and it benefits their mental health and wellbeing.

It is not just the elderly who are affected by the move towards a cashless society. I have long advocated ensuring that the infrastructure in South West Hertfordshire, including essential services such as banking, is accessible for everyone. Those with a disability or impairment are also being impacted by the move away from high street banks. In a recent survey of a group of 2,700 people who had a disability or impairment, more than half said they had been negatively impacted by bank closures. They struggle with security features, authentication checks and speaking to their bank over the phone. They are simply left with no other alternative, and should not be forced to travel to other towns, often on unreliable, infrequent public transport, simply to access their money.

More than 1 million people in the UK rely wholly on cash, and 8 million adults report that they would struggle in a completely cashless society. For the elderly and the vulnerable, the opening of local banking hubs reduces the risk of their becoming victims of financial abuse and allows them to remain independent. As I have said, post offices and the postmasters who run them are often more than just a post service. They see their regulars frequently, and will notice if someone has not been seen or does not look well. They are not healthcare professionals, but they are another set of eyes and ears that can tell how customers are doing.

The process of opening a banking hub is currently undertaken by Cash Access UK, Link and supporting banks, and I look forward to meeting with Link shortly to begin discussions about getting a banking hub in Abbots Langley. I previously discussed the process with other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who expressed concerns about the parameters that are used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this very important debate.

In recent years, banking services have been withdrawing from my constituency. Every single high street has seen bank branches close, and we now have fewer of them, but Cheshunt has borne the brunt. Cheshunt is a busy town of 40,000 people, right in the heart of my constituency, but not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.

The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving individuals and businesses of access to vital services and, for so many older and vulnerable people, causing huge difficulty and frustration as they are forced to use digital services and smartphone apps. My own nan is one of them, and she is not happy about it. Across Broxbourne, more than 3,000 people are living with sight loss, and that group is particularly reliant on in-person banking services. Many cannot use online banking at all, and they feel the pressure that not being digitally connected puts on them. That is why they like going into a bank branch, to get help from a real person to access their cash. They might specifically pick a bank with a branch on the high street, but if it closes, some banks now require customers to use an app to get a code in order to speak to the bank over the phone. That does not solve the issue.

It is the sensible view of me and my constituents that Broxbourne needs a banking hub and, in particular, that the town of Cheshunt would be the perfect place for one, as it is right in the middle of my constituency. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned, the process for securing a banking hub is far from sensible.

Link has told me that Cheshunt does not meet the criteria for a hub because

“there are already cash access services and facilities within a 1-mile radius which are suitable for the needs of the local area”

and “the deficiency does not” affect my constituents enough. Well, not having a bank really does affect my constituents. This is typical civil service protocol on where policies should be implemented and where they should not be. The rules simply need to change.

Link points out that my constituents can take a 15-minute bus journey to Waltham Cross, where a handful of banks remain for now, but do not get me started on the state of the bus services in Broxbourne. It is true that there are bus stops in the precise centre of Cheshunt and a few of my constituents will be able to get a bus—if it turns up and it is on time. In most cases, buses simply do not turn up on time or do not turn up at all.

However, the vast majority of the people of Cheshunt do not live on top of a bus stop. Link has told me that journey times of less than 15 minutes are deemed acceptable, but many of my constituents living in residential areas off the high street, in neighbourhoods of Cheshunt such as Flamstead End, Rosedale or Bury Green, or in the village of Goffs Oak have much longer journeys even to board a bus, let alone to travel to a bank. That is not acknowledged at all in the assessment process, which uses only an

“approximation of the centre of the high street”.

That is not acceptable; it does not reflect the wider catchment area of towns such as Cheshunt and the role that Cheshunt serves for my constituents.

The criteria need to change to ensure that any town that wants a banking hub can have one. Surely that is within the Minister’s gift. I thank her for meeting me recently to discuss my campaign to get a banking hub in Cheshunt, but every time that I have asked for one, I have been told that we do not meet the access to cash criteria and that there is nothing the Government can do about it—they simply wash their hands of it. I was told in a written answer that it is all down to Link, or the financial services sector, or the Financial Conduct Authority. Well, I have met Link and it tells that it cannot help; I have met the Financial Conduct Authority and it says that it is up to the Government to change the law. Will it really take the closure of every bank in my constituency before we are even considered for a banking hub? It looks inevitable that that day will come.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about banking services in Hertfordshire, but I want to make a broader point about the criteria for allowing banking hubs. To be fair to the Minister, she has engaged well with me, too, but surely the point has come for Government intervention, to try to persuade—or tell—Link that the rules have to change, because they are no longer fit for purpose, and that those communities that desperately need these banking hubs should be allowed to have them.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I completely agree. Now is the time to change the rules and it is up to the Government to step up, be accountable to the electorate they serve and change the rules, rather than hiding behind unaccountable bodies such as Link, which do not determine the rules but just sit in their ivory towers and say, “This looks good on paper,” when it does not work in reality. I hope that the Minister will commit to go away and change the rules so that we can get more banking hubs open, not just in Hertfordshire but across the United Kingdom as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

I thank the right hon. Member for making a good point for the Minister to consider.

The closure of branches and their replacement with only 350 hubs represents nothing more than big banks trying to increase their profits further at the expense of their customers. That is not just a mild inconvenience; it presents a serious accessibility issue, as we have heard. For the disabled, the elderly and those without technical know-how, bank branches are often a vital resource.

[John Lamont]

In addition to some customers not being comfortable using digital, some are unable to do so because they do not have broadband. I am sure the hon. Lady’s constituency is like mine. For some communities, if the bank branch has gone, using the banking app is not possible because the broadband capability is not there.

[Susan Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Even in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, we have dark spots where people cannot access wi-fi. That is an important point.

A vital local resource, banks allow people to deposit cash and cheques, withdraw their money or check their details, and get help from staff. To allow the closure of banks without suitable access to a replacement banking hub is not just inconvenient; it is a step backwards for equality. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal for a financial inclusion strategy that would ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority take into account financial inclusion. That would help to protect access to cash for those who need it, ensure that rural communities are not excluded from accessing resources and, importantly, support banking hubs.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I presume Mr Lamont thinks it is north-east Scotland, rather than north-east England.

[John Lamont]

This Government decided to cancel the A1 upgrade, which will harm the economy not just in the north-east of England, but in the south of Scotland. What economic impact assessment did the Government make before deciding to cancel that vital road link?

[Emma Reynolds]

Nice try. In terms of north-east growth, I have already said that we are working very closely with the Mayor of the North East combined authority. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks questions about roads relevant to his part of the country at Transport questions.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Today I will highlight the shortsighted, reckless and misguided Labour policy to increase tax on farmers. I start by paying tribute to the petitioner for raising this important issue, and to the hundreds if not thousands of farmers outside this place showing how much they hate the policy.

It is an issue that has dismayed and appalled my constituents in the Scottish Borders. They are bitterly disappointed because this decision by the Prime Minister will mean the sad—even tragic—end of many family farms. Many farmers will no longer be able to pass their property, on which their ancestors may have worked for decades or longer, on to the next generation. That is not right. It is not why they have worked so hard to look after the countryside, and why they have got up early and worked late all their days.

What makes it worse is that they feel betrayed by a Labour Government that promised this would not happen. Labour made it abundantly clear that it would not increase taxes on farmers. But just like with the winter fuel payment to pensioners, and national insurance rises on businesses, Labour did not tell the truth. It broke its promises, and the consequences of it not keeping its word will be profound to people in the Borders, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

It is not only farmers in my constituency that the policy impacts, nor only workers in the rural economy, nor businesses in the food and drink industry. If the policy continues, it will affect everyone in one way or another. Labour’s decision will force the breaking up of many family farms, which will be tragic for those families. But it will also mean higher prices in shops and supermarkets for the rest of us. It will put our food security at risk and harm the environment, as we are forced to rely on costly imports that are not as high quality and that are flown in from much further away. How does any of that make sense?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with the Government showing their inability to crack a good deal when they go into negotiations, they may well give in on any potential trade deal with America and allow cheaper products to undermine our beef and chicken farms?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are no longer self-sufficient in food production, we will become much more dependent on lower quality overseas imports.

Labour has made a grave error, which will cost our farmers and our country dearly. That is why so many people in the borders and across the whole United Kingdom are concerned by this decision. It will have negative consequences that last generations, and that may not be reparable. Unlike any other businesses, farms cannot come back once they close; they are often gone for good.

Labour simply is not listening. The Government even admitted as much to me lately: I submitted a question to the Secretary of State for DEFRA to ask how much correspondence his Department had received from individuals making representations on changes to APR and business property relief for inheritance tax since October, and the only response I got was that Ministers do not know—they do not have this information. That shows a stunning lack of respect for farmers and food producers. The Labour Government simply do not care.

Labour needs to rethink its family farm tax policy. Labour said “change” often enough in the run-up to the general election, and that is exactly what needs to happen now: this deeply damaging policy needs to change. It needs to be scrapped, or family farms will be lost, supermarket prices will go up, food security will be at risk and our environment will suffer. The Scottish and British people have spoken on this policy; now, Labour needs to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more. It is telling that we have had strong representation in this debate not only from Northern Ireland, but from Scotland and every part of this United Kingdom. All Members have voiced their concerns that Labour’s choice to bring in the family farm tax will have catastrophic consequences not only for the hard-working families who are outside the gates of the Houses of Parliament right now, but for the wider agricultural sector.

Similar comments were made to me at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, which I attended earlier this week. Machinery dealers told me that they are being impacted not only by the lack of confidence resulting from Labour’s choices to reduce inheritance tax relief, but by the consequences of employer national insurance and other pressures being put on the wider sector. As if that were not bad enough, the business owner I spoke to will, by their own calculation, face a nearly £800,000 tax liability on death as a result of the changes to business property relief. That business has been trading for over 130 years and now faces the end of the line.

The impact is not just on farming family businesses, but on the wider agricultural sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said, the NFU has undertaken research that suggests that unfortunately 75% of farming businesses will be affected. Research released recently by Savills suggests that 88% of farmland will be affected. Research conducted by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers suggests that the Government underestimate fivefold the tax impact. These are professionals in the industry, and the Government are not even willing to listen to their points.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is speaking powerfully about the issues that will affect the farming community. He mentioned the NFU; I met NFU representatives in Scotland recently and was appalled that the Treasury had refused to meet them. The representative body of farmers in Scotland is reaching out repeatedly to Treasury officials for a meeting to discuss its concerns, but Treasury Ministers and their teams are refusing to engage. They are just not listening. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury is just not taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should to understand the impact?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully: collectively, all industry bodies and professionals in the sector are united. The NFU, the CLA, the CAAV—of which I put it on record that I am a fellow, having previously practised as a rural practice surveyor, so I understand the implications on the value of farmland—and Savills, as a key land agent, are all saying exactly the same thing: that this Government’s policy will have catastrophic consequences. My understanding is that the Chancellor has not yet even bothered to reach out to any of those professional organisations to sit round a table and try to understand their concerns. That point was made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I say to the hon. Member that the Conservatives have been absolutely clear: we would axe the family farm tax, and we would reverse the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief, which have such huge and catastrophic implications. In my view, the Government need to go further—not tinker with thresholds, but provide proper, decent certainty to the whole agricultural community by reversing this provision, which will have catastrophic implications that they admit themselves will give the Treasury revenue of only about £500 million. In my understanding, that would keep the NHS going for about 20 hours. Given the detrimental impact that the changes will have, the Government should think about reversing this disastrous policy.

For the 10th time of asking in this place, what impact assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on growth within our entire agricultural sector as a result of the autumn Budget? What about all the other negative implications—employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage increase, the de-linked payments significantly reducing, and capital grants disappearing—even before we start talking about the family farm tax?

When this tax was first announced at the Budget, I thought that maybe our new Labour Government were being naive. Perhaps they did not understand the catastrophic impact their Budget would have on our farming businesses, and would soon change course. After six months, however, the Government have consistently refused to listen to the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the CAAV, Opposition Members and others who have repeatedly tried to expose the damaging impact of the tax.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. One group he has not yet mentioned is the supermarkets: Tesco, Asda, Marks & Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, the Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have all urged the Labour Government to pause and consult, because the UK’s future food security is at risk as a result of this policy.

[Robbie Moore]

That is absolutely the point. Others outside the sector, including all our supermarkets, have come together in agreement to say how catastrophic the damage caused to the farming sector by this Labour Government will be. Indeed, the 250,000 who signed the petition launched by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, which was presented to the Treasury a month ago, all agree with the comments that Opposition Members are making.

The Labour Government have wilfully ignored the farming community, the machinery dealers, the feed merchants, the auction marts, the supermarkets, the wider agricultural sector, including accountants, bank managers and land agents, and indeed the wider public. All have voiced their concerns that the family farm tax will have a crippling impact on UK agriculture. On top of that, as I said, the Chancellor continues not to meet any stakeholders. Today, as we have seen, no DEFRA Minister has even had the decency to turn up to this debate, despite its being of incredible importance.

No, the Government were not being naive. The reality is much worse. What is now clear is that this Government’s family farm tax is purposely vindictive. Indeed, I now believe that it was designed to be this way. The Government’s actual intent is to send a strong message to our farmers that they are not needed, that they do not matter and that they do not play a vital part in our national agenda.

As someone who has been involved in agriculture all my life since entering this place, this is personal to me. That is why we on the Conservative Benches do value our farmers. That is why the Conservatives will axe the family farm tax and reverse the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief—no ifs, no buts.

As I have said, I can only hope that the Minister is about to get to his feet to confirm, right now, today—with all of our farming community watching this debate and many others on the streets of Westminster after travelling from far afield to get here—that his Government will listen, make changes and, hopefully, axe their vindictive family farm tax. If he does not, I can tell him that Opposition Members will keep coming back, again and again, until he and his Government finally stand up for our farmers up and down this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), asked how the figures were arrived at. The figure to which I referred—520 estates likely to be affected in ’26-27—comes from taking the historical data and projecting it forward using economic determinants. She may have seen the letter sent by the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee in November, which set out how that calculation was done. I suggest that all Members read that letter to understand the basis for that 520 number.

The statistics also show how many estates claiming business property relief are likely to be affected. Around three quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone, excluding those only holding alternative investment market shares, will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

I recognise the disagreement over this policy, but Ministers and officials have been listening carefully to the views of the farming sector and rural communities. Ahead of the Budget, there was media speculation that the Government were going to abolish the reliefs altogether. In reaction to that speculation, the Treasury received and considered several representations from the farming sector with views on retaining the reliefs. I responded to a debate on the matter in this very room on 17 October.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have only a few minutes left, so I will not.

I have also participated in several meetings with farming bodies since the autumn Budget 2024, and I am meeting farming bodies again shortly to discuss their concerns further. At the same time, it is important to recognise that other organisations have called for the reliefs to be abolished or restricted. Commentators have highlighted that the reliefs currently contribute to an inheritance tax system that means that the very largest estates pay lower effective tax rates than smaller estates. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has set out since the Budget, the changes we announced will still leave farmland much more lightly taxed than other assets.

I want to address as many of the points that Members made during the debate as possible, but it is worth saying first that it is important to see the changes in the context of wider support for farmers and the rural community. The Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our history. It committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last year, and we are protecting farms and rural businesses by committing £2.4 billion over the next two years to rebuild crumbling flood defences.

We will also continue to provide existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. That includes, for example, the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, and the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use red diesel, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) mentioned.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the inheritance tax treatment of Scottish agricultural leases, the Government are aware of the issue and officials have already discussed it with their counterparts in the Scottish Government. There is an existing provision in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 that deals explicitly with the Scottish agricultural leases. Section 177 of the Inheritance Tax Act means that Scottish agricultural leases passed down on death are not included in the value of the estate.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The OBR’s publication yesterday sets out the costings that were in the October Budget. There is no difference between the costings set out in October and what the OBR set out yesterday. It simply showed more of the background behind how they calculated those costings, for transparency and so that people are aware. Indeed, it says in the report that that is done in an effort to improve the public debate and ensure that people understand what is behind the data published at the time of the Budget.

As I said to several Opposition Members, clearly this was one of many tough decisions that we took in the Budget to balance the public finances, but we also made sure that there is greater protection from inheritance tax under our proposed reform scheme than is available more widely.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Labour Government’s family farm tax will be catastrophic to farmers in my constituency in the Borders. I will join many of them and their tractors in Kelso on Saturday, when the farming community comes together to show its displeasure and disapproval of this policy. Farmers will struggle to pay this tax, so what assessment have the Government made of the policy’s impact on vets, feed merchants, machinery suppliers, and all the other people who support the rural economy?

[James Murray]

Supporting the rural economy, public services and investment right across the country is part of Labour’s national mission to get the economy growing, but the prerequisite for that investment and economic growth is stable public finances. Without economic stability, we cannot proceed to the investment and growth that we all so desperately need. That is why the decision to target agricultural property relief and business property relief was taken, alongside all the other difficult decisions that we took in the Budget.

Christmas Adjournment

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Ahead of the Christmas break, I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognise and celebrate some of the amazing organisations that serve the Scottish Borders all the year round. These groups, and the volunteers who help keep them running, often do not get the praise they deserve, so I want to mark the excellent work of those who provide unbelievable support to so many people all the year round. The generosity and compassion of volunteers and workers across the Borders are incredible.

I want to start by recognising the organisations that provide extra help to our NHS, and to patients and their families. I recently had the privilege of meeting some of the Margaret Kerr fundraising team, who help support the purpose-built, specialist palliative care unit at Borders general hospital. I would encourage everyone to give anything they can to help this wonderful group and to keep the unit operating as effectively as possible for those who need treatment and care. I also thank the volunteers at the Borders Parkinson’s support group. It was a pleasure recently to join the volunteers and service users, and to spend some time with those who attend. The meetings are well attended, good natured and very sociable, so well done to the volunteers for bringing people together in this way.

Beyond healthcare and the NHS, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the passionate community campaigners who want the best for the Borders and who put in the work to make local projects happen. The first of these fine groups is the Campaign for Borders Rail—I have worked with it for many years—which is seeking to extend the Borders railway on to Hawick, Newcastleton and Carlisle. I have been doing everything I can during my time as its MP, and previously as its MSP, to get this extension built. It is disappointing that the new Government have not yet committed to the funding to which the previous Government had committed for the feasibility study, but I will continue to push for that to be delivered. Similarly, I pay tribute to the Rail Action Group East of Scotland for its campaigns to get better train services along the east coast of Scotland and to get the station reopened at Reston a couple of years ago. I particularly want to mention two stalwarts of this campaign, Barrie Forrest and Tom Thorburn, who have done so much to improve rail services over many years.

Beyond the transport network, lots of community groups in the Borders are helping to bring people together. First, I want to mention the Men’s Shed network, which has multiple locations across the Borders to promote the wellbeing and quality of life of local people. We are particularly lucky in the Borders to have the highest number of men’s sheds located there than in any constituency in the UK. Secondly, I want to mention Escape Youth Services in Hawick, which provides incredible support to young people. I was delighted to be able to join one of its sessions recently, and the young people clearly love and enjoy the activities that the dedicated team of volunteers provide for them.

I have a few other groups to mention, including Sustainable Selkirk and the Berwickshire Marine Reserve, which help preserve our environment. I also want to mention the local people who help promote our high streets, because without thriving high streets with local businesses and shops, our communities would be greatly diminished. The team behind the Galashiels business improvement district recently had a huge success in persuading local businesses to back its plans, and I would also mention the General Store in Selkirk and Café ReCharge in Galashiels.

To conclude, I wish every Member of the House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year when it comes. Christmas is a time to be thankful, and I particularly want to thank the UK armed forces personnel who will sacrifice their own festive break to serve our country. Their selfless sacrifice and dedication should be an inspiration to us all. The same goes for those in the NHS and the emergency service workers who work through the festive period to keep us healthy and safe. We owe them all our gratitude for continuing to do their duty while most people take time off. Although their efforts are not as critical as those of our armed forces and emergency services, we should not forget hospitality workers and small business owners who also work through the festive season.

Finally, I hope we will all take the chance over Christmas to think of those less fortunate than ourselves, and to look out for our neighbours, who may be lonely or struggling more at this time of year. Even the smallest gesture of generosity can mean a lot to someone who may not have others to look out for them. Happy Christmas to everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate case for Stockport and the health facilities there. Obviously, we will always look at these proposals seriously, as will Departments including the Department of Health and Social Care. Although I cannot comment on this proposal specifically, not having had sight of it in detail, I am always happy to have conversations with him.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What progress his Department has made in levelling up all regions of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)]

Levelling up is this Government’s defining mission; it is a golden thread running through this Budget and spending review. We are creating the right conditions for businesses to grow and giving people the right skills to succeed. We believe that the place where someone grows up should never limit their prospects.

[John Lamont]

This Government are rightly committed to levelling up all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Improving transport links by extending the Borders railway in my constituency from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle would be a very good way of improving the economic opportunities for people living in those communities. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government support the extension of the Borders railway as part of the levelling-up agenda?

[Helen Whately]

I commend my hon. Friend for his forthright campaign for the extension of the Borders railway. I reassure him that the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland are discussing the options to extend the railway, and, as I think he knows, the £350 million Borderlands inclusive growth deal includes up to £5 million to assess feasibility.