Rural Roads

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate.

The condition of rural roads is an ever-present issue for those of us who represent rural constituencies. In the Weald of Kent, where we have mile after mile of country lane used by massive lorries that have crossed the channel and are hoping to avoid traffic on the main routes, the situation is especially dire.

I visited the Falkland Islands on a parliamentary trip last year, where many of the roads have not even been fully laid. When I explained to the officer driving the car where I lived, he said, “Ah! I know your constituency. It’s the only place in the world I’ve been where the roads are worse than here.”

I sent a survey to every household in the Weald of Kent last year. Of the 1,500 responses I received, street works were mentioned more than 500 times. I do not have time today to talk about all the challenges that they pose, but the Transport Committee, of which I and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) are both members, published a report on that last year. I would love to hear an update from the Minister on the Government’s response to that report.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell]

That is an incredibly fair question. The Treasury has been unable to give me an answer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to when he sums up the debate. Regardless of one’s views on gambling, we must ensure that the implementation of new levies does not drive people into the black market, because that is where they are most exposed to risk. If people are to participate in gaming and betting, I would much rather they did so in UK-based, regulated services, where they can get help and support if needed, and where the taxes they pay can go towards funding our public services. It is a fair point, and one on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer.

I wonder whether the Minister could also give some thought to the following point. This taxation has been hypothecated, in the narrative, as being directly to fund the Government’s welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but in reality that is not how taxation works in this country—we do not hypothecate specific taxation lines to pay for specific social policies; instead, the money goes into the Treasury pot, and the Treasury, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, hands it out to other Departments, which then make their spending commitments.

Now, the Government’s own OBR forecast suggests that, given the behavioural changes expected to take place as a result of the differential rates between the regulated and unregulated sectors, and given the people who will pay tax, the yield from this tax will potentially be down by a third by 2029-30—that means somewhere in the region of £300 million will be lost. If we are making this direct comparison, saying that the levy is needed to fund the welcome change in the two-child benefit cap, can the Minister set out where the additional funding will come from in 2029-30, if the reduction resulting from behavioural change takes place?

Even if the Government are unable to support my new clause 8 tonight, a proper impact assessment would at least allow a better understanding of future challenges relating to the behaviour of consumers and the impact on tax yield.

My new clause 9 seeks a similar impact assessment, but in relation to our friends in Gibraltar. The Minister will be acutely aware that the gaming and gambling sector is a huge part of Gibraltar’s economy—30% of its GDP comes from the sector, and it employs some 3,500 people. The gambling and gaming companies that have a footprint in Gibraltar pay Gibraltar corporation tax as well as any levies paid in the UK. However, because it is a top-line tax, rather than a bottom-line tax, any impact on the profitability of companies based in Gibraltar, or any behavioural changes in the stakes put through those companies, will have an immediate and direct impact on Gibraltar’s revenues.

One third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts come from the sector, so anything we do in this place that has an impact on the sector there—I entirely accept that this is not an intended consequence of the decision—would leave a huge hole in its economy, and that will have to be filled. We are talking about potentially tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions. Gibraltar is, of course, one of the family of nations that make up Britain, and we have to ensure that, given its strategic importance because of our defence work, we do nothing that makes it less safe as a result of tax changes here.

Of course, the Government of Gibraltar are currently putting through their Parliament the changes to the EU-Gibraltar treaty, which will help with the flow of the gaming sector’s workforce, given the cross-border nature of the workforce. However, Nigel Feetham—the Member of the Gibraltar Parliament who holds the justice, trade and industry brief—has said that what Gibraltar really needs is stability, and not to have “avoidable” decisions from the UK. I know that the Government will resist my new clause, but I ask the Minister to lay out what communications and active engagement he and the Treasury have had with our friends in Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is of strategic importance to us and part of the family of nations that makes up who we are, and decisions that we take in this Finance Bill are having a huge impact on its economy and its ability to fund its public services, which contribute to our overall national defence. While Gibraltar is embedding the new treaty changes, it is important that it has some certainty about its revenue stream.

The media are reporting that the Gibraltarian Government are looking at rapid diversification of their economy to make up the difference, but realistically we do not know what the impact will be on our economy, and they certainly do not know what the impact will be on theirs. The Minister will be acutely aware that as Gibraltar is dependent for 30% of its tax intake from one sector, even a small change here in the UK could have a hugely detrimental impact over there. I hope that he will address the stability that the Gibraltar Parliament has been asking for, and for which Nigel Feetham has rightly been asking in his engagements with the Treasury.

Finally, I had not intended to do so, but I will touch on new clause 10 tabled by the Opposition about CBAM. I have often talked in this place about the importance of our manufacturing industries, and not least the ceramics industry, which falls outside the current proposals for CBAM but will be subject to the emissions trading scheme. There is a perversity about the emissions trading scheme and CBAM in that if we get it wrong, we will just drive up prices for consumers and for producers, while others are importing into our country ceramics produced using cheap Russian gas, which means that their price point is much below what we can produce them here. It also has the distorting effect that our exports become more expensive when they hit the CBAM—particularly for Europe.

Therefore, while we are at a point of global turmoil and gas prices are increasing hugely overnight—the price per therm was 74p last week; it is now somewhere around 160p—there is some work to be done by the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor about that in her statement on Monday; unfortunately, she missed the point about gas-intensive industry and went straight to electric-intensive industry, which is different. When the Government look at how we do CBAM and where we will have free allowances for the ETS, will the Minister bear in mind those small sectors such as ceramics that are crucial to our foundational manufacturing? I am talking not about the tiles, tableware and giftware that I talk about so often, but about the advanced ceramics that we need in this country, which are dependent on a gas price that works and being able to trade across the European border without huge external tariffs being placed on them because of carbon leakage.

Nuclear submarine air filtration systems are ceramic, and the rotor blades that go on small modular reactors made in Derby will require a ceramic powder coating for them to be utilised that will have to cross many borders. There is the potential that we price out British manufacturers as a result of the CBAM and the ETS if we do not have some of those lifelong allowances and we do not think about the interplay of components that travel over borders. Therefore, while I had not intended to speak about the Opposition’s new clause 10, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a valid point in terms of ceramics. Even if the Minister will not take the new clause forward—obviously we will not support it, because it is not a Government amendment—the hon. Gentleman’s point is worthy of consideration in a different form.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax.

What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works. A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.

Spring Forecast

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, and he was also a big advocate for the reforms to the Green Book that we managed to bring in at the Budget last year. Because of those changes, we will now look more favourably at investment opportunities in rural areas, coastal communities and places that have been left behind. I welcome any suggestions for specific investments in his constituency, either through the British Business Bank, UK Export Finance or the National Wealth Fund, all of which have had their budgets expanded under this Labour Government.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has

“the right economic plan for our country”.

Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I can reassure the hon. Member that I and Ministers will continue to think through the impacts on rural communities—and all communities—when we come forward with changes to tax or other policies. It is because we have done that that we came forward with the change we announced just before Christmas, and we will be making that change in the Finance Bill in the coming weeks.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Family farms and family businesses across the Weald of Kent have been through appalling emotional turmoil in trying to work out how to avoid leaving their children unaffordable, crippling tax bills when they die. They are operating on razor-thin margins and small profits, and many of them have been forced to shell out thousands of pounds on professional services advice on this issue, which is now worthless. What does the Minister have to say to them?

[Dan Tomlinson]

To those families—people with farms and businesses that would have been affected by the lower threshold, but will now be affected less or not at all by the higher threshold—I would say that we have listened. Over recent months, we have heard the concerns that were raised, and that is why we have raised the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means a couple can pass on up to £5 million of agricultural and business assets tax-free on inheritance. I briefly remind the House that, above that threshold, the tax rate is half the rate that everyone else pays—20% rather than 40%—and that those who pay it will, if they so need, have 10 years to pay it interest-free.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important topic that affects so many people and businesses in the Weald of Kent, which proudly produces some of the finest wines in the country.

The principle of taxing alcohol by strength may make sense in theory, but wine is an agricultural product. Its strength cannot be engineered to order; instead, it varies naturally with climate and vintage. A system designed for factory production simply does not work for vineyards rooted in the soil. Sadly, our wine businesses have faced steep duty increases, ever more paperwork and, as a result, mounting costs across the board. In the Weald of Kent, small vineyards—often family-run and started from scratch—are grappling not just with higher duties but with higher label costs, greater packaging charges and yet more red tape.

In May, I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to raise my concerns about the impact of alcohol duty on the wine industry. In his reply, he said that producers below 8.5% ABV could claim draught relief and small producer relief. That is true, but almost no wine sits below 8.5% strength. Might the Minister be able to tell us how many UK wineries actually claimed either relief last year?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Like the hon. Lady, as a south-east MP, I have some amazing vineyards in my constituency, such as Bolney Wine Estate and Albourne Estate. They have told me about the challenges of the 8.5% cap that the hon. Lady has so articulately set out. It strikes me, however, that the previous Conservative Government brought in that cap. Does the hon. Lady think that current members of the Conservative party regret that decision from 2022?

[Katie Lam]

It is not for me to speak for them, but it is reasonable to say that the system we have does not work very well. It would not be right to pretend otherwise on behalf of my constituents who have to deal with it every day.

The Minister’s predecessor also said that the new system benefits lower strength wines, including many British wines. Since February, overall rates have risen. Might the Minister be able to tell us what share of English wines are paying less or more duty now than under the previous system? Finally, the previous Minister said that reforms would strengthen the tax base, yet as far as I can see, between April and September, alcohol duty receipts were almost £300 million lower than in the same period last year, despite the rates rise. It would be useful if the Minister could explain that.

Duty on 14.5% ABV wine is now almost half as much more again as it was in August 2023. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly pointed out, well more than half the shelf price of a bottle of wine is now tax. In France, the equivalent duty is a few euro cents, and in Spain, it is nothing at all. This duty system, combined with the general tax rises in the last Budget, is putting businesses at risk. Could the Minister please rule out any further duty increases in the upcoming Budget? Countless small producers in the Weald of Kent, and about 1,000 independent merchants across England, are already struggling under the weight of new bureaucracy and tax pressures.

Winemaking is not an exact science. As I mentioned, alcohol strength fluctuates from year to year, and small differences can double a producer’s duty bill. Large multi-national producers may be able to absorb that; small family wineries cannot. They cannot dial down their ABV without changing the taste or quality of the product. They cannot dilute wine without destroying it. These are new entrepreneurial businesses built on enormous risk and long-term investment. Many vineyards in the Weald have put everything they have into buying land, planting vines and waiting years before their first sale.

In my constituency, we are proud to host many of Britain’s leading wineries, including Chapel Down, Gusbourne, Balfour, Biddenden, Westwell, Woodchurch and Domaine Evremond—the list goes on. They bring visitors, jobs and pride to the Weald, and it is an utter pleasure to visit them all. We are also home to small start-ups, such as the husband and wife team I met last month in Hamstreet taking a leap of faith into the sector. It if is tough for the big names, it is tougher still for the small ones. Now, they face not just duty increases but rising national insurance costs, higher minimum wages, an end to flexible employment contracts, changes to inheritance tax relief, and packaging fees that penalise glass, which is the only viable material for quality sparkling wine.

When I last raised the broader issue of wine in England, I asked the Minister’s colleague in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he would support the sector’s call for targeted help, and he said it was a matter for the Treasury. I say to the Minister today, “Please look again.” I know that he did not create the duty framework, but my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is right that we seem to have reached the tipping point at which our taxation system is so complex and onerous that it is collecting less money than a simpler lower-rate system would. It would be great to hear what plans the Minister has to support such an exciting and dynamic industry creating jobs and amazing export opportunities in rural parts of the country such as my home, the Weald of Kent.

Spring Statement

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget, we set out £40 billion-worth of tax increases; we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, put VAT on private schools and tightened the rules around inheritance tax. We made those decisions so that we could invest more in our public services, including in our schools and our hospitals. Indeed, we have now committed to lifting defence spending within the next two years to 2.5% of GDP. On welfare spending, there is nothing progressive about writing off a generation of young people, so our targeted, personalised support will help people get back into work, lift them out of poverty, and help them to contribute both to their family finances and to our nation’s finances.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady talks of financial responsibility, but will she please tell us when Government bond yields hit their highest levels since the global financial crisis, and who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer then? If she needs a clue, we can bring her a mirror.

[Rachel Reeves]

If we look at financial markets and follow them closely, we can see that the increases in bond yields in the UK, France and Germany have closely tracked each other. Global financial instability has affected countries around the world, and that is why it is so important that we continue to meet our fiscal rules, as I have set out today.

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that people who are standing were here at the beginning.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Within the last week, has the Chancellor spoken to the Governor of the Bank of England about the impact of soaring borrowing costs?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England on a regular basis and will continue to do so.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The Government have made many claims about this policy that are not credible, but I wish to address only four.

First, they outrageously claimed that they would not do it. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), said last year:

“We have no intention of changing APR.”

He said that given the situation that farmers are in, a Government cannot possibly go to people and demand more taxes. I am sorry he is not here today to hear his own words.

Secondly, the Government claim the change is unavoidable as they desperately need the £500 million they claim that it will raise. The £500 million that they give to farms overseas and the £9 billion that they were all too happy to hand over to public sector unions says otherwise.

Thirdly, the Government claim that these people are rich. That completely misunderstands agriculture and the countryside. A farm is not an asset on a balance sheet. Our farmers are stewards of their land, holding it for the next generation and the generation after that. It is not the fault of farmers—especially those in places such as my constituency in Kent, with its astronomical house prices—that their land is so valuable in a way that does not at all reflect their farm’s profitability.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Member, like me, slightly irate when she hears UK Government Ministers talking about how the terms of the proposed agricultural property relief are much more favourable than the rate that other people have to pay? Inheriting the family farm is not like inheriting your mother’s house. You do not liquidate the asset and then live the high life; you just get on with the job that you were doing the day before and the day before that. There is no enrichment involved, making the Government’s policy utterly baseless.

[Katie Lam]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. My farmers tell me that these inheritance tax bills will take decades of profit to pay off, so they will keep doing the job that they were doing yesterday, but with a fraction of the cash that they had before—which was not a lot to begin with.

Finally, I want to address the idea that farmers can simply give farms away and live another seven years. It is incredible that the Government should introduce a tax in one breath and encourage people to avoid it in the next, and it makes a mockery of the whole policy. If it is true, then the tax will not raise any money for the Government, but instead increase bureaucracy and advisory fees for farmers. Mostly, though, for many people, it is not an option or it will not work. People have not been given enough time to plan for these changes. My constituent Ross grows hops in Tenterden. As he watched the Budget, his father, who is in his 70s, was suffering from sepsis and fighting for his life in hospital.

Especially in farming, our most dangerous industry, people cannot guarantee that they will live another seven years after having handed over the farm. Another of my constituents is in remission, having recently recovered from cancer. If the cancer returns, it is likely to be terminal. This constituent is in their early 50s. Are the Government seriously suggesting that my constituent should hand over, not just the farm, but the home that they live in to their teenage children?

Many of my farmers live in their farmhouses and are planning to work the rest of their days. They do not have pensions; they do not have plans that would allow them to spend the last decade of their lives—of course, it may be much more—no longer farming the land that they have farmed for the whole of their lives up until this point. Finally, to raise a point that seems to have been almost entirely ignored, doing this will incur eye-watering capital gains tax bills. For some of my farmers, it will mean hundreds of years’ worth of land revaluation that they similarly cannot afford to pay.

[Louise Jones]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the capital gains tax starts from the moment of a person deceasing, not from when they bought that land?

[Katie Lam]

What I have been told by my farmers, based on the tax advice that they have been given, is that the bills—and not just the inheritance tax on decades of profits—will be completely unaffordable.

Farming is hard. It is not like any other industry: it is a culture and a way of life. It is lonely, revenues are uncertain, profits are tiny and cash is tight.

[Andrew Pakes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will not, as I am coming to the end of my speech.

It is absurd and shameful that this Government, looking to fund their union pay rises and vanity energy projects, are putting this pressure on those who do the back-breaking work of growing our food. Farmers already have appalling problems with mental health and suicide: the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution tells us that a third of farmers may be depressed and half may be suffering from anxiety. One of my farmers says that his father is now kept up at night by the thought that he will leave his children a crippling debt that will make their lives financially impossible. Another told me that his father says that he just hopes that he dies before the changes come in. This policy is illogical, inconsistent, dishonest and wrong.