Banking Services: Accessibility

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for introducing this debate on a subject that is so important to his constituents and those of so many other Members.

Lloyds Banking Group recently informed me, with only four months’ notice, that it is set to close its Tewkesbury branch alongside 94 others across the UK. Members who represent rural constituencies similar to mine will understand just how hard that will be for residents, not only of Tewkesbury but of the smaller settlements around it. The closure of Lloyds is only the latest in a sorry pattern that we have faced in recent years. In Tewkesbury town alone, the Barclays branch was shuttered in 2025, following the closure of Halifax only a few years previously. In Bishop’s Cleeve, NatWest and TSB have perished, as has the Lloyds mobile banking service. Winchcombe has not had a bank branch since 2018, and had lost face-to-face banking altogether for a brief but painful period until the post office was reopened in 2025. I take this opportunity to thank Councillor Gemma Madle for her excellent work in securing the reopening of that branch, and indeed to thank the Post Office for providing that lifeline.

As I said, such bank closures are prohibitive for residents in rural communities, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and those who fear the transition to digital banking due to the threat of criminal exploitation, but they are damaging in other ways too. For our high street businesses, a bank closure means the added administrative burden of closing their account or moving it to a bank with a continuing presence, if one remains. It means that the footfall that would otherwise occur on Tewkesbury high street, from people who live in outlying villages and bank with Lloyds, might now benefit the high street in Cheltenham or Evesham. It means another empty front on a historic high street and another signal from the bank that it will no longer justify serving its customers face to face.

I cannot make this case without also stating that these closures are occurring while Tewkesbury borough continues to develop as the fastest-growing borough outside London. How can it be sustainable that, as the local population grows so quickly, the services on our high street continue to diminish? On 13 February, I wrote to Lloyds Banking Group with my concerns. I have yet to receive a response. I echo the criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made of Lloyds Banking Group’s communication. Like his constituents, mine were not consulted; neither were my local businesses, and I certainly was not. It is a continuing pattern, which I experienced as a Lloyds customer until I ended my association with the bank, several years ago.

The Government have pledged to open 350 new banking hubs across the country by the end of this Parliament. I am glad for those communities that now feature one. Sadly, there is not a single banking hub within the Gloucestershire local authority, and I understand that Tewkesbury will not qualify for one until its final bank branch closes. With only TSB remaining on Tewkesbury high street, will the Government support my residents with a banking hub now, or must they wait until they have no access at all? This paints a picture to me that we need more than the 350 hubs pledged.

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

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. After a long campaign in my constituency, we have been lucky enough to secure a banking hub in Ilkley. It opens in a couple of weeks. I fear that more bank branches will close in Keighley and we will need to secure a banking hub there. One challenge has been that when Cash Access UK and Link assess whether a banking hub should be opened, they look at when the last bank closes but also assess access to cash through a cash machine. I suggest that when the hon. Member is trying to secure banking hubs in his constituency, he should pay attention to making sure that there is a cash machine on the outside of the hub, because I have had that challenge in my constituency.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for the advice; I will certainly take that forward. I am glad to hear that his constituents are served by a banking hub.

I close by welcoming the formal review of access to cash that the Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives pointed out, it does not incorporate access to other banking services. I worry about communities such as mine, which will suffer in the interim.

Rural Roads

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is frustrating, yet sadly not surprising, that roads across Keighley and Ilkley are facing so many challenges. I lay those challenges at the doorstep of Labour-run Bradford council, which has consistently shown disregard for the needs of the people across Keighley and Ilkley. That is backed up by a freedom of information request that I made in 2023, which found that over a six-year period, just £4.1 million of the district’s highways funding was spent in Keighley and Ilkley, equating to just 4% of the total funding over that period, yet Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South—all held by Labour MPs—received £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million, respectively.

It is beyond belief that my constituents have received much less funding compared with other areas across the Bradford district. I would therefore like to understand what the Minister will do to hold to account local authorities that do not share their highways funding equally across the districts they represent.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism in the Bill. It shows a commitment from this Government to supporting British industry, which underpins the fabric of local economies and communities across the country, including Mid and South Pembrokeshire.

For British industries included in its scope, a CBAM means they can compete on a level playing field with industries in the global market. It works by applying a charge to the carbon emitted during the production of imported carbon-intensive goods. That ensures that our domestic producers do not face higher production costs compared with their foreign competitors operating in countries where the price of carbon is lower. That is critical, for without a CBAM, those industries will go elsewhere, moving production to low-regulation, high-emission countries. We would lose jobs, investment and our industrial base while simply offshoring our emissions. That is carbon leakage: decarbonisation at the cost of deindustrialisation. It would be devastating for industrial communities across the country, in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. That is why I call on the Government to expand the scope of the CBAM to include the oil refining industry.

Refined petroleum products are highly exposed to carbon leakage, and without the protection of the CBAM, we risk losing this industry. There would be untold consequences for communities like mine in Pembrokeshire, which is the home of one of the UK’s four remaining oil refineries. Locally, the refining sector employs over 1,000 people. Nationally, it accounts for 15% of Welsh export GDP. Oil refinery continues to be foundational to the UK’s economy and energy security; oil products supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand and support thousands of skilled jobs in industrial communities like Pembrokeshire.

The transition to net zero must be a just one. It cannot come at the cost of deindustrialisation and greater economic deprivation in communities like mine. As the party of working people, it is incumbent on this Labour Government to manage this energy transition by protecting the jobs and skills base of today while building the industries of tomorrow. Recent global events have shown once again how trade flows can change overnight, threatening our energy security and directly impacting the cost of living for our constituents. As a Government, we must be agile in responding, providing the support and certainty our communities and industries need to weather the storms.

A CBAM can provide targeted support to industry during turbulent times. However, the Bill in its current form requires the effectiveness of the CBAM to be reviewed only after five years. I hardly need to remind the House how dramatically the geopolitical landscape can change in that time. That is why I urge the Minister to consider making provision for yearly reviews of the CBAM during its first five years. This would allow the Treasury to respond to unforeseen events and ensure that the CBAM continued to achieve its objective, minimising the risk of carbon leakage for carbon-intensive industries in the UK, so that our decarbonisation efforts could lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas.

We are at a critical juncture for British industry. Decisions made by this Government will shape the UK’s ability to safeguard industrial jobs and maintain global competitiveness while meeting net zero objectives and creating jobs for the future without simply offshoring our emissions. This Bill continues the Government’s work to build a stronger, fairer country by growing our economy, raising living standards and, crucially, investing in our public services. The introduction of the CBAM is a vital part of this broader package of measures, but I urge the Minister to consider expanding its scope and reviewing it annually to ensure that it delivers on its important objectives in a rapidly changing world.

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

I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death.

This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the way the Government have approached this has hurt their main aim of economic growth, because farmers have delayed ordering and, because of the new rules, there is now no incentive to grow their farms over that £2.5 million threshold?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has estimated that 4,500 farms, mainly in the dairy industry, will still be impacted by the set changes. Does he agree that, given the need for food security, we need to protect our farms, not do away with them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy.

Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House.

It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability.

To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments.

Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined.

And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that, like me, he has received many emails and letters from farmers over the last few days, given that the price of red diesel, heating oil and fertiliser has gone up in the light of recent uncertain events. Does that not demonstrate and remind us all how fragile farming businesses are? The idea that farmers will have sufficient money sitting in the bank to pay this tax bill is for the birds.

[Robbie Moore]

It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.

This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.

Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.

We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.

I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Before I start, I should declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. I want to talk about new clauses 8 and 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke to earlier. They are thoughtful, well-meaning new clauses that address real concerns. I want to add a bit of context, and set out what the evidence shows about the black market and the situation in Gibraltar.

Industries associated with harm often use the black market as an excuse to avoid regulation or additional taxation. When I was on the Finance Bill Committee last year, we received a lot of correspondence from the tobacco industry, in which it made the same sort of claim. We were seeking to increase taxes—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), might remember the debate—and the tobacco industry was using the black market as an excuse for why that should not happen. In the gambling sector, the threat of the black market is overblown. The regulated market is dominant, and in recent years there have been lots of taxation changes that have not increased the size of the black market. I will give two examples.

When we changed from taxing turnover to taxing profit in 2001, the black market was highlighted as a risk, but there were no real changes. Again, when we introduced the point-of-consumption tax in 2014, there was no surge in unregulated or black market gambling. Indeed, a 2021 Gambling Commission study found that only a very small proportion of UK gamblers ever used unlicensed sites, and they did so mostly by accident. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central accurately pointed out, people who are banned from regulated sites sometimes turn to the unregulated sector, and that truly is a problem.

Focusing on the black market risks diverting attention away from the significant and better-evidenced harms in the regulated sector. Those harms are most widespread in the areas in which we are seeking to increase taxes—we have discussed that, so I will not go into it too much. However, it is important that we tackle the black market, so I welcome the illegal gambling taskforce that has been introduced, as well as the additional £26 million for the Gambling Commission to address those issues. We should not buy into the narrative that risks from the black market should stop us making changes to keep people safe from the most harmful forms of gambling.

If the tax changes are as economically damaging for Gibraltar as has been claimed, we need to consider how they work in other jurisdictions. The same gambling organisations often operate in other countries with much higher tax rates than the UK, and they manage to survive profitably in those sectors. I think that we should take that into account when considering new clause 9 and the impact on Gibraltar.

--- Later in debate ---

The SNP will not take part in decisions about amendment 5, put forward by the Conservatives, because it relates to income tax thresholds, which are a devolved matter, but we are happy to support the Conservatives’ amendment 6 on APR and BPR. I support a lot of the points that have been made about the changes to agricultural property relief. On business property relief, I am concerned as a result of conversations with family businesses in my constituency that we will see an increase in the number of fire sales. Family businesses will suddenly become liable for significant amounts of tax, but their assets are not liquid—they cannot just take out cash and give it to the tax man—and they will have to sell a significant part of the business within a tight timescale. Even if the Government were to be more flexible on the timescales, the situation would still be disastrous but there would not be a fire sale, such as those that businesses may have to have as it stands. Given that some family businesses are run by older people—they are the ones who have shares in the business and are responsible for it—we might see major issues very soon and businesses having to sell big chunks to pay tax bills.

[Robbie Moore]

I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Given that we have a Labour Government who care about workers’ rights, the family businesses that I have visited have a strong worker involvement. The people who work there are cared for and looked after because it is a family business, and one would think that the Labour party would want to support more of those rather than encouraging people to get out of that place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have big concerns on the matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is currently leading a debate in Westminster Hall, he is unable to speak to his amendments himself, so I would like to talk about the reasons that he has tabled them. He has tabled a number of amendments in relation to APR and the anti-forestalling clauses. We are pleased that the threshold for APR was raised—that is welcome—but we are concerned about the backdating and the fact that the changes relate to things from 2024 onwards, rather than from April 2026 onwards. My hon. Friend’s amendments relate specifically to those anti-forestalling issues and ask for changes to be made, so that there is no backdating on the transactions. A number of agricultural organisations and farmers in his constituency have asked for those changes to be made, which is why he has put forward those amendments. The Government have raised the threshold, which is welcome, but if they continue to push forward with this measure, that will not be enough. Either cancelling it completely, as suggested by the Conservatives, or looking at the date would be incredibly helpful in ensuring that it is not backdated or retrospective, so that people do not lose relief on changes announced or made previous to the Budget.

My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in relation to whisky duty, which would take out clause 86. Over the last three years, we have seen an 18% hike in whisky duty. The figures show that there will be a £600 million downgrade in receipts as a result of continuing to increase this tax. Increasing the tax will reduce receipts, which will result in jobs in Scotland being put at risk, and the Government getting less money. I do not understand the logic of continuing to push ahead with raising whisky duty.

We really want the Government to think again. [Interruption.] To be fair, the 18% hike over three years was down to both Labour and the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the Conservatives do not have a huge amount of high ground. This issue has happened under both parties, but we will continue to fight on behalf of Scottish whisky producers. The tax on spirits needs to be looked at seriously, because this is an important part of the Scottish economy; it provides jobs in rural areas where depopulation is a big issue. We need these companies to continue, but if the Government continue to raise tax and hike the tax rates, we will see those jobs dropping off.

Amendment 140 has not been selected, but it is the only amendment put forward by our merry band of Reform colleagues, although they signed some other amendments. If anyone looks at that amendment, which we would presume is Reform’s key priority, given that that is the only amendment it has put forward, they will see that it would remove clause 88, which increases cigar duty. The main priority of Reform in the entire Finance Bill is that the Government should not be allowed to increase duty on cigars. That says a huge amount about the priorities of those who sit on the Reform Benches for the general people. To be fair, no Reform Members are here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am just stating a fact, which is that there are few—if any—businesses near the relevant thresholds. The hon. and learned Member made the point that the Government’s decision may be hampering growth and investment; I do not think that is the case. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are seeking to deepen and strengthen our ties with the European Union so that we in this country can increase our productivity through better flowing trade, working together with our partners. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 112 to 139.

Amendments 6 and 8 relate to the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief as raised by the shadow Exchequer Secretary as well as the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). If we were to adopt those amendments, we would weaken the public purse by about £300 million a year. It would also leave a status quo that contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smallest estates. I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked for clarity on payment deadlines in the inheritance tax system. The Government’s position is that the six-month point is the right one. It has applied for a long time, and it is not our position to change that timeline when these changes come into force.

[Robbie Moore]

I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling]

I do not know those venues, but I suspect some of them may well be on the high street. We, as Liberal Democrats, know that our constituents see our high streets as the beating heart of our communities. By backing our hospitality industry, we are backing our high streets.

Anthony from Otto in Torquay shared with me how independents are powered by families; they put people first. The reality is that an independent is not going to get a regional chippy in to do some work for him. He is going to take on the chippy who he plays football with on a Sunday morning. He has some skin in the game; he might know that chippy’s kids, because they go to the local sixth form with his kids. As independents, they have a level of skin in the game. That is why we need to ensure that we set up an economy that supports independents. What I found extremely scary when talking with a number of these people this weekend was that they were saying, “Why are we doing this? We could be managers of a local supermarket and sleep at night.” I hope the Minister will listen to these pleas and ensure that the Government do this cumulative impact assessment.

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

I rise to speak to clause 86 and new clause 26, tabled in the name of the official Opposition, which requires the Government to carry out a review of the impact of the increased level of alcohol duty on our pubs and hospitality sector. All these measures will have a cumulative impact on our hospitality and pub sector, because this comes on the back of the huge amount of tax revenue that will be raised from the last Budget—£26 billion-worth, or £64 billion-worth if we take into account the last two Budgets. Alcohol duty alone will bring in an additional £400 million a year—a raid on our pints, spirits and glasses of wine. Alcohol duty is set to rise by an inflation-busting 3.66% at the start of February, equating to a 2p increase on the price of a pint in a pub.

When I am out in my constituency speaking to the landlords of the Dog and Gun in the Worth valley, the Craven Heifer in Addingham, the Airedale Heifer in Keighley or the Black Hat in Ilkley, they all talk to me about the cumulative impact of not only the alcohol duty increase but rising employer’s national insurance, soaring energy costs, increasing minimum wages, the business rate relief reduction not being at the level that was initially indicated and, of course, the tourism tax that is coming down the line. The tourism tax will impact areas like Haworth in the Worth valley and Ilkley in my constituency, where a tax will be collected and go into a generalised pot to be redistributed by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, but I suspect it will not go back into places like Ilkley or Haworth, which are effectively being used as cash cows for the rest of West Yorkshire.

These are all detrimental impacts over and above the alcohol duty. At a local level, on-street parking charges in Ilkley are set to increase at the end of this month. All these things are making it much more difficult for places like the Flying Duck and the Black Hat in Ilkley, where people like to go and enjoy a drink. Disposable income is getting less in my constituency. Labour-run Bradford council has increased council tax by 14.99% in the last two years. People have less money in their pockets, and then we have a Labour Government hitting our pubs and hospitality sector, and boy do they feel it.

Clause 1

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government do support the farming sector and the farming industry. We will continue to do so through the funds that we will make available via DEFRA—funds that were not fully spent under the previous Government. We have listened to farming communities and business representatives, and raised the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million as a result of that listening and engagement. The Government do not think it would be right to abolish the policy in full, because then we would forgo £300 million of revenue from the very largest estates. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) may say that £300 million is a rounding error, but it is important to raise revenue from a broad range of taxes, and from those with the largest-value estates in the country. As I said earlier, hundreds of millions of pounds in tax is relieved from the very largest estates in the country. If Opposition Members want that to continue to be the case, that is of course their right, but we Government Members think that our reforms are fair, and raise proportionate revenue from the very largest estates.

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

Can the Minister explain how we ended up in the bizarre scenario in which two estates—I use the term “estates”, because they need not necessarily be farming businesses; they could be any kind of family business estate—valued at £5 million could generate different amounts of tax for the Treasury, depending on the ownership structure? Secondly, can he explain, because I cannot see this in the amendments that have been tabled, why there is no indexation link to any increase? Obviously, land values will increase over time. Thirdly, when he was last at the Dispatch Box, he said that interest would not be charged, so can he clarify whether, when inheritance tax liability is triggered, interest is or is not triggered in that 10-year period?

[Dan Tomlinson]

There were some forensic questions in that not brief intervention, but of course I appreciate it, and I look forward to trying to go through—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the questions, okay? [Interruption.] It is a bit difficult when Opposition Front Benchers continue to barrack me while I am trying to answer the questions that a Back-Bencher has asked. If the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) wishes to continue to hector me from a sedentary position, she may, but we will not have any time for me to answer questions.

On the points raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—let me dial down the temperature; congratulations for getting to me—and on how the spousal transfer is used in the inheritance tax system, we are replicating that in the treatment of the spousal transfer for APR and BPR. That is the way the transfer is set out in the inheritance tax system. We are not doing anything different or novel here. We just debated the thresholds, which will be set at current levels and will not be uprated in line with the changes that we are making to other taxes. The hon. Gentleman also asked about interest. As I said, where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on the relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, if they like, and that will be interest-free. I have been through the numbers. Only 185 additional estates claiming APR are expected to pay more in 2026.

To conclude, the reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances, and funding our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I completely agree. We would not be doing this, and we should not be here, but clearly the policy has been executed without a plan—without serious thought, analysis or engagement. I would welcome anything that the Government can do to make this less painful for those affected and to get the numbers right.

The Minister explained that the Government expect to raise around £300 million even with the U-turn, but the initial costing was labelled in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook as “highly uncertain”. For those not familiar with this, there are different categories of uncertainty in the EFO, and “highly uncertain” is the most uncertain that one can be about a figure. Surely this new figure of £300 million is uncertain, just as the £500 million was. What assurance can the Minister provide that the Exchequer will not in fact lose out overall, despite the pain that the Government are determined to inflict? How confident is he in these numbers?

Secondly, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, family businesses and farmers have had to make many difficult decisions. Family Business UK and Make UK say that 55% of BPR-affected and 49% of APR-affected businesses have paused or cancelled investments. Family-run farms are putting off the purchase of new, more efficient machinery and family-run shops no longer see the point of expanding to an additional site or another high street, or of taking on more staff. It comes back to the questionable figures I talked about and the CBI’s analysis of the impact on the wider economy.

Finally, we should have no confidence in the practicality of the measures before us. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that extending 10 annual interest-free instalments to APR and BPR property does not solve the problem; those instalments will still be a significant burden. In practice, it is unlikely that many families will be able to pay the tax without selling up.

[Robbie Moore]

On practicalities, I would be interested to understand whether the Minister or the Treasury has done any analysis of the impact on the district valuer. There is a real challenge in that when a farm is valued, that value will be disputed by either the Treasury or the agent acting on behalf of the landowner with that tax liability. Secondly, if we look at two farms in different parts of the country, we see that values vary dramatically. What consideration does my hon. Friend think the Treasury has given to how tax liability varies based on the value of 200 acres of land in one part of the country and 200 acres valued at a higher rate, such as in Northern Ireland? Practicalities matter.

[Gareth Davies]

That is exactly right. I will let the Minister address that point, but let me pay tribute again to my hon. Friend, who has been a forceful champion for farmers across the country and has consistently raised these issues. That goes back to my point about the warnings provided to the Government about the practical implications of the changes, with their impact on family farms in particular. They were ignored until this point. The Minister will have to explain why that was.

Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that schedule 12’s failure to allow allowances to be allocated to specific property could undermine many wills as currently drafted. This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, disputes and real hardship.

Where the cap is exceeded, the first inheritance tax payment will fall just six months after death. If that deadline is missed, the estate will be hit with a punishing interest rate. Within six months, family farms must secure probate, value complex agricultural and business assets, calculate the liability and then raise the cash—often by selling parts of the estate to make the first payment. The NFU has been clear that expecting probate within six months is “unrealistic” given the complexity of valuing agricultural businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In practice, families and personal representatives will miss the deadline—through no fault of their own—without a confirmed tax bill and without the funds to pay for it.

The Government’s expectation is simply unrealistic. The approach is flawed, and the window must be extended. If clause 62 is agreed to and the Government do not finally concede, family farmers and businesses in my community of Lincolnshire and those across the country will not rest until these changes are fully reversed. The only consolation I can offer farmers and businesses watching the votes closely tonight—they will be watching every single one—is that the next Conservative Government will scrap these immoral changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his intervention. Rather than go down the route of his question, let me respond with the words of one of my local farmers. She wrote to me on 23 December and said:

“As you know, we have been very vocal in opposing the earlier proposals, so it is equally important to state how strongly we welcome this change in policy. Increasing the threshold, together with the ability to retrospectively transfer unused APR and BPR allowances from my late mother to my father, will make a huge difference to our family and the viability of our farm business.

I will leave my remarks there.

[Robbie Moore]

I will speak to clause 62, schedule 12 and the amendments to them tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers.

Throughout debate on the Finance Bill, we have heard about the changes to inheritance tax, predominantly in relation to the agricultural and business property reliefs. My comments refer not only to the many family farming businesses affected by the Government’s changes, but to many other family businesses, be they hospitality or manufacturing businesses, including in my Keighley constituency. They are all affected by the direction that the Labour Government are taking.

The changes that the Government have brought to the Committee do not get rid of the cliff edge associated with the measure kicking in a few months from now in April. Changing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million does not remove that cliff edge for a family business that has an IHT liability kicking in. I would like the Minister to explain further why the Government are not addressing that stark cliff edge, even though Members from all Opposition parties have reiterated that problem to the Government over the past 14 months.

The second matter I will raise is the absolutely bizarre and bonkers scenario that we find ourselves in. Two estates valued at £5 million could be subject to different tax liabilities depending on the ownership structure. How bizarre is it that we now find ourselves in a scenario in which an estate valued at over and above £2.5 million and owned by a single person could be subject to an IHT liability of 20%, but a farm valued at £5 million and owned by a married couple is subject to no IHT liability at all? I would like further explanation from the Minister on that specific point.

Of course, values vary dramatically across the country. In Northern Ireland, where most farmland assets are given very high valuations, farms of 200 acres, say, could be valued significantly more or less in different parts of the country, so they would be subject to different tax liabilities if they surpassed the £2.5 million and £5 million thresholds, depending on their ownership structures. Let us not forget that, for arable farmers, feed wheat prices have not changed dramatically over the past 20 years—they still average about the same—but input prices are going up, no thanks to this Government’s raising of employer national insurance contributions and imposition of the fertiliser tax. In reality, the productivity and return rate for a farming business, if it breaks even at all, is about 1%. Those with asset base that is valued significantly higher will be subject to a higher tax liability, and they will have to sell off more assets to pay the same amount, despite their level of return being 1%, if that. That is different from a farm that has been valued at a much lower rate. Will the Minister explain what level of detail the Government have gone into to explore such challenges that are facing many farming businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Lady has mentioned, I think two or three times, that it will be possible for the ultra-wealthy to be exposed to the inheritance tax liability. However, having a huge asset base that may be worth a great deal of money does not mean having a good income. A business could have a cash flow that is not generating any revenue to keep that business going. Is she classifying businesses and farming families in her constituency who might have an asset base of over £1 million as very wealthy people?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman missed the third paragraph of my speech, in which I talked about the asset-rich but cash-poor nature of farming. Land may be worth a lot of money according to most people’s standards, but it may not be possible to realise the value in cash terms unless the land is sold, especially for non-farming uses. As he knows, I am talking about the threshold that has now been set at £2.5 million for individuals and £5 million for couples, not the £1 million threshold that I and many of my colleagues have succeeded in changing.

I make no apology for supporting a progressive policy that closes tax loopholes for the wealthy. I am thinking of people such as James Dyson, who talked proudly about buying up agricultural land in order to avoid tax. How can anyone defend multimillion-pound estates paying zero inheritance tax, when we are digging ourselves out of the fiscal and social hole made by 14 years of Conservative government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I hope that the Minister will answer my question, which I have asked twice in this debate, about indexation and the scenario in which two estates valued at £5 million are subject to different IHT liabilities depending on their ownership structures. Given that this issue is so important, not only to our farming community but to family businesses more broadly, why on earth did the Chancellor not announce this change at the Budget? It seems very peculiar to make a big fiscal change outside of a Budget announcement.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come shortly to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), mentioned the costs of administrating the tax changes. Those costs were published in a tax impact and information note, alongside the changes: £9.2 million is the figure that the Government published. On the sustainable farming incentive, which he and others mentioned, he may have missed the update that Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided last week, which the NFU said showed

“real ambition for a thriving agriculture industry”.

The hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and others, mentioned that the allowance is only transferrable between spouses. That is in line with the long-standing approach to inheritance tax. The inheritance tax nil rate band and the residence nil rate band are also only transferrable between spouses and civil partners.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The OBR was aware of the tax changes announced in the previous Budget when it made its forecast just a few weeks ago. It expects that employment will rise in every year of this forecast; that every year, the figure will be higher than it was in March; and that there will be over 35 million people in work by the end of the decade.

As I was saying, this year, borrowing as a share of GDP will be at its lowest level in six years, and the Chancellor made the decision to more than double our headroom against the fiscal rules in this Budget to provide continued economic stability. This Finance Bill, alongside other Budget decisions, delivers choices that give people new opportunities and renew our public services. These choices will help lift thousands of children out of poverty, get more people into work and maintain the highest level of public sector investment in 40 years. I was struck by the response from the North East chamber of commerce, which welcomed the ending of the two-child limit, saying,

“The Chancellor is right to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Our members have long argued that this is one of the most powerful levers available to tackle the unacceptable rates of child poverty across our region and to support more parents into sustained and meaningful employment.”

Statements like that are further confirmation that lifting 500,000 children out of poverty is not just the right thing to do, in order to give our children the best start in life, but is an investment in the future and our economy. All of us will be better for it.

This Government have promised to deliver economic growth as our No. 1 priority.

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

I am not quite sure whether the Minister believes what he is reading, because UKHospitality has already done the sums on the impact that this Budget is having on many hard-working hospitality businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. Indeed, it has calculated that over the next three years, hospitality businesses in my constituency will have to pay on average an additional £13,690 per annum. Can the Minister say what the Budget will mean for the growth of hard-working hospitality businesses in my constituency?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member said that he is not sure whether I believe what I am reading. I did write this myself, and I do very much believe it. We will have plenty of time to debate the business rates measures when we consider the relevant pieces of legislation and in Committee, I am sure. They are not specifically in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but I am mentioning things that are not in the Bill, so of course, he is welcome to raise things that are in the Budget, too. At Treasury questions last week we discussed at length, with the shadow Front-Bench team and others, the relief and support that is now in the system to help businesses with the increases in valuations they have seen since the pandemic—there is over £4 billion of support over the next few years, with £2 billion coming this year alone. However, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I might speak for 15 minutes, but we are 11 minutes in and I am only on page 2, so I will try to make some progress.

We are sticking to our commitments in the corporate tax road map, maintaining the headline rate of corporation tax—the lowest in the G7—and making reforms to capital allowances to support fiscal sustainability while retaining incentives to invest. We are going further to support companies to scale up and attract investment and talent by significantly expanding the enterprise management incentives company eligibility limits, to maintain the world-leading nature of this scheme. We are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, to make the schemes more generous and supportive for entrepreneurs, helping to support more investment in companies and improve access to finance for those we want to see make the transition from start-up to scale-up.

We are delivering a new service to support major investment projects with advance tax certainty, as committed to in the corporate tax road map. We are also introducing a 40% first-year allowance, allowing businesses to immediately write off a significant amount of their investment to reduce their corporation tax or income tax bill in the year that they make that investment. Overall, these growth measures and the many others we are delivering across the Government will result in the doubling of limits for our enterprise tax incentives and will support many scale-ups and businesses to attract capital as they grow.

This Finance Bill builds on many other measures announced at the Budget and delivered over this Parliament. We are expanding and continuing the work of the National Wealth Fund. We have committed £14 billion for Sizewell C, to help power more than 6 million homes. We are making rapid progress on enabling the delivery of a third runway at Heathrow, and we have provided £120 billion in additional capital investment for roads, rail and energy, including £15.6 billion for major city regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I give way to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who was the first to catch my eye on that occasion.

[Robbie Moore]

Business property relief impacts many family businesses across the country. What does the Minister say to Fibreline in my constituency, which has worked out that its BPR liability is about £850,000? The company employs 250 people in Keighley whose jobs are potentially at risk as a result of the business not being able to mitigate an inheritance tax liability that this Government are imposing on it.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Our proposals on APR and BPR mean that those with business or agricultural assets will have both the additional £1 million allowance and a tax rate that is half the rate that others within the system pay. My understanding is that the system will be more generous than the one in place before 1992, throughout the whole time that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.

We are reforming the Motability scheme to end the VAT relief on top-up payments, which was a one-off payment required to lease more expensive vehicles on the scheme. We are also ending the application of insurance premium tax on leases to ensure that the scheme delivers value for money for the taxpayer, while choosing to continue to support disabled people.

We are introducing reforms to ensure that private hire vehicle operators will no longer be able to illegitimately exploit an administrative scheme intended for tour operators to pay a much lower rate of VAT than others.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I fully support the Chancellor’s decision to rebuild the headroom, tackle Government borrowing and stick to her fiscal rules. It is consistent with Labour values. There is nothing progressive about 10% of Government spending being on interest. There is nothing progressive about leaving unsustainable debt to future generations.

I worry that there is a lot of criticism of the Chancellor’s proposals but very little by way of fully worked-up alternative proposals. Tackling debt is very important because the nature of Government debt buyers is changing with the closure of defined-benefit schemes, and as the OBR has outlined in a report, where we borrow money from in the future will be very different from what we face now. Furthermore, there is rising debt across many Governments in the western world. Tackling this Government debt in the longer term is very important, and the Chancellor is quite right to focus on her fiscal rules and face the tough decisions that need to be taken. All of us must play our part in assisting with something that is incredibly important for our country.

[Robbie Moore]

This comes down to choices. The tax revenue that will be raised from the changes to APR and BPR is about £500 million. On the other hand, the Government are saying, “We are going to spend £1.8 billion on a roll-out of mandatory digital ID, and £47 billion on the Chagos deal.” This is about choices and how the Government not only raise revenue, but spend it.

[John Grady]

It is about choices—choices to invest in the health service so that people can return to work and contribute to the economy. There is nothing more heartbreaking than being a constituency MP and listening to people who have been waiting for over two years for a hip operation and cannot work. It is about choices to invest in infrastructure and in new nuclear power stations. These are the choices that the Government are making, and I am proud of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his amusing intervention. I am sure that time will tell.

We must all contribute to Britain’s renewal, and there are things that only Government can do to secure that renewal. If we want to get the NHS back on its feet, fix our crumbling schools, cut waiting lists and truly invest in Britain’s future, we must pay for it. We know that the alternatives proposed by the Opposition parties lead only to calamity. Liz Truss showed us that when Governments cut taxes for the wealthy, it is working people who end up paying. Nor should we want infinite borrowing, however; I do not want to spend £1 in every £10 serving debt interest. It should go to our schools, our hospitals, and our country.



So yes, in the Budget and in the Bill, the tax burden has increased, but it is those with the broadest shoulders who will bear the greatest weight—those with property to let, those with shares to sell, those paid not through wages but through dividends, those with such vast savings that they pay tax on the interest alone.

[Robbie Moore]

rose—

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

rose—

[Adam Thompson]

In the interests of time, I will not give way again.

These are income streams that are overwhelmingly enjoyed by the highest earners, and it is, by and large, the already well-off who will pay more under the Bill. Its provisions include changes to national insurance relief on pension contributions through salary sacrifice schemes—again, a mechanism primarily used by the highest earners. They include reforming council tax, so that someone living in a £10 million mansion in central London does not pay less council tax than a terraced house owner in Ilkeston and Long Eaton. They include a new surcharge on homes worth more than £2 million, which will be paid by fewer than 1% of homeowners. This Budget was for working families, for the everyman and the everywoman, for children and for young people. It was not a Budget for millionaires, billionaires, slum landlords, investment bankers, or the bosses of big corporations.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Adam Thompson]

As I have said, in the interests of time, I will take no more interventions.

Instead, we are taking action to cut the cost of living and strengthen our public services. There will be £150 off average energy bills next year, rising to £300 for the poorest households—again, money back in working people’s pockets. As inflation continues to fall, it becomes easier for the Bank of England to cut interest rates, as it has repeatedly under this Government. Prescription charges, train fares and bus fares have all been frozen. There are 5.2 million more appointments in our NHS, with 250 new neighbourhood health centres, cutting waiting lists and bringing care back closer to where people actually live.

The Opposition parties will decry these measures, exposing our fundamental differences. Reform—whose Members are not here today, I note—would sell off our NHS to the highest bidder, and force people to pay for the care they need. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are calling for mass redundancies in the public sector, enough to sack every police officer in the country twice over. They are against the minimum wage, they are against protections for workers, and they have no plans for growth or renewal—just policies that would leave working families worse off, while their donors get richer and richer.

To renew Britain costs money. To restore confidence in the public finances takes time. To get the economy growing again is a serious challenge, but we are meeting it. The choice is between the measures in the Budget and the Bill, and a return to austerity, and I know which side I am on. I will never apologise for standing up for working people, and for saying that the highest earners should pay their fair share. Nor should the Chancellor, the Government or the British people.

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

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) has read the Budget. He said that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the pain, but those on the basic rate of income tax will be paying an additional £220 a year in income tax as a result of this Budget. I am not quite sure that those with the broadest shoulders will be paying that level of tax.

Growth is down, inflation is up, taxes are up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and interest debt is up. This Budget, coupled with the last one, is £66 billion of tax raising. As we speak, there are farmers outside this Chamber once again, and I know that they are in the Public Gallery as well. Why? Because of the changes that this Government continue to press ahead with through the family farm tax and the family business tax.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers across South Shropshire have been devastated by the family farm tax? It is going to impact them far beyond what the Government are even considering, and it will impact national food security.

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Graham Stuart]

I am reminded again of Shakespeare, who I believe said:

“Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. All I advocate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, is that this Government simply engage with and listen to our farming community. It is not just our farming community that is hit by the IHT changes; it is family businesses more widely.

[Ben Maguire]

I want to point out the case of a North Cornwall farmer called Will Harris, who gave up an engineering job at £60,000 a year to provide food security and put food on our tables. His income is about £30,000 a year, but the tax his children may have to pay would be £500,000—or £50,000 a year, which is almost double the farm income. He is terrified and can hardly sleep at night for thinking, if something happens to him, what will happen to his teenage children and their farm.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and not only Cornish farmers, but those right across the country are being impacted by this Government’s decisions. He also makes the excellent point that many of our farming businesses are incredibly highly geared, given the level of debt associated with their businesses, and are not returning a level of income to even contribute towards paying an IHT liability at 20% over and above the £1 million threshold. They will therefore be subject to a death tax that they will simply be unable to pay.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend was brought up in a notable local farming family in my constituency, and the reason why the House is listening to him is that he has been bred into farming and knows about farming. Would he like to say what, from his own family’s experience, this means for farmers in Lincolnshire? Some people say that Lincolnshire is full of large estates and all the rest of it. No, it is full of working farms, and he can speak with authority on this subject.

[Robbie Moore]

The point to make quite clearly is that every single farming business will, in one way or another, be impacted by the £1 million threshold kicking in. Why? Because for an arable farm in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire or wherever it is, the price of feed wheat is still at about the same price it was 20 years ago, but the costs of all the inputs have been rising. Not only are such businesses subject to cash-flow challenges as a result of this Government removing the delinked payments —dramatically dropping them to £600—as well as removing the sustainable farming incentive and bringing in the fertiliser tax or the double cab pick-up tax, but they will be impacted by the changes to inheritance tax. That impact will be felt by hill farmers in Keighley and Ilkley; arable farmers in Lincolnshire or, dare I say it, down in Cornwall; and farmers wherever there are, even those subject to high land values in Northern Ireland. This Government must listen to our farming community right now, because whether farmers come down today or tomorrow to make noise with their tractors outside, I hope they continue coming to make sure that this Government listen.

It is not just our farming community that is impacted by the IHT changes. This has an impact on our family businesses, our hospitality businesses, our breweries and our manufacturing and engineering businesses. That is why I simply cannot understand why we have not heard from Back-Bench Labour MPs representing urban constituencies, who may be representing a manufacturing or engineering business, a hospitality business or a hotelier. Why on earth have those with such family businesses in their constituencies not been loud and proud in making noises to the Chancellor about the negative impacts these IHT changes will have on our many family businesses?

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

I have recently joined the Public Accounts Committee, and in my short time on the Committee I have come across qualified accounts and local authorities not having audited accounts; only 4% of them have audited accounts. I have watched the Government wasting almost endless amounts of money, and then I witness this madness of them basically breaking the backbone of British farms and British small businesses, and in effect ensuring that there will be none of the long-term investment that drives our economy. Does the hon. Member agree with me that, before we start breaking up these enterprises, we should get the Government’s house in order and cut state waste?

[Robbie Moore]

I do agree with the hon. Member that the Government must get their own house in order before implementing strategies that are impacting many of our hard-working businesses.

The changes to BPR are detrimental. Why? I would use the example of a business in my constituency that has already worked out that its liability after the changes to BPR is about £800,000. The business is owned by the fourth generation, who are in their late 80s. They have been told that the only way to pay a BPR liability, should a death occur after April 2026, is to sell plant or machinery, or to sell shares in their business, either way losing control of their business or not being able to keep their business productive. That demonstrates how uninformed the Government are about the changes they will be making.

I think I have made my point. [Interruption.] The Minister sits on the Front Bench laughing away, but had she had the time to go outside and engage with our farming community, or at least get around the table with Back-Bench Labour MPs and Opposition Members who have been consistently raising this issue over the last year, she might not be sitting there smiling away; she might be able to come to the Dispatch Box in her winding-up speech to give some sort of positive conclusion and hope to those many businesses who will be impacted by this disastrous Labour Government.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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%.

[Robbie Moore]

A £1 million threshold is nothing when we take into account the value of farmland, a cottage, a farmhouse, growing crops, stocks in store, livestock and machinery valuations—all of which will be taken into account at the valuation of an estate on death. A £1 million threshold is nothing before a 20% IHT liability is put on that estate. I urge the Minister to look at this again. Farmland values are significantly higher in Northern Ireland, and I reiterate my point that Northern Ireland farmers will see a greater impact from the £1 million threshold.

[Dan Tomlinson]

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

Property Taxes

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do not accept that at all. This surge is entirely due to the Chancellor losing control of public expenditure, and the increased cost of servicing our national debt adds further pressure on the British taxpayer.

Having presented her Budget, the Chancellor said:

“We’re not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing.”

The problem is that no one believes her. The markets do not believe her, and Labour Back Benchers certainly do not believe her. They now know that they only have to threaten to rebel on any item of public expenditure and the Chancellor will cave. We saw that on the welfare reform Bill, which was brought forward to save a modest £4.5 billion. What happened? The first whiff of a rebellion, and the Bill was gutted, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the cost.

In that context, over the summer we saw briefings from the Treasury testing the water on a whole series of potential tax rises: higher rates of council tax, a land value tax, capital gains tax on family homes, lowering the thresholds for inheritance tax and an annual property levy on the family home. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is being so careful about which of her many homes is her primary residence.

The Chancellor is clearly desperate to raise more money. It is a cruel irony, is it not, that having invented a £22 billion black hole to justify her taxing and spending, the Chancellor now finds herself facing a black hole entirely of her own making? It is her jobs tax and other tax rises that have caused the economy to slow and unemployment to rise. Her increase in public expenditure has fuelled inflation, which has led to higher wage demands and increased benefit costs.

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

That is exactly the problem. Many businesses in my constituency—and, dare I say it, in others—are saying to us as Members of Parliament that they want to but dare not invest in growing their businesses, because they do not know what increases in taxes are coming down the line from this Chancellor. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that businesses are reluctant to invest right now in the projects they want to deliver for the growth of their own enterprises?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree. It is the threat of higher taxes that is causing the economy to stall.

Rather than reducing the size of the state so that it is affordable, the Government give every indication of wanting it to grow further. The fundamental reason that this Government need to raise taxes is that they are incapable of controlling the fiscal incompetence of their own Back Benchers. At their core, Labour MPs genuinely believe that the state can spend our constituents’ money better than they can spend it themselves. They do not believe in thrift or self-reliance, and they see no limit on the size of the state.

Opposition Members know that it is businessmen and businesswomen across Britain who create wealth and growth. Success is the result of hard work, taking risks, satisfying customers and employing neighbours. The Government should provide the environment for those businesses to thrive, rather than threatening every part of the economy with higher taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Here we are, well over a year into this new Administration, this new Labour Government, and it is clear that they have fundamentally mismanaged the economy in their first year in office. What do we see? Borrowing costs up, growth flatlining, taxes rising and businesses being absolutely hammered. To fix this mess to the tune of £50 billion—who knows what it might be—Labour is now threatening to hike taxes on anyone they have not already squeezed into submission.

It is clear that the Labour Government are coming after people’s property. It was not enough for them to legislate to compulsorily purchase people’s gardens and homes by giving local authorities and Natural England more power through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to acquire them not at market value, but at a disregarded value relating to agricultural property value if they are a farm. If the Government do not manage to grab it, they certainly intend to tax it.

As if that tax on people’s homes or gardens was not bad enough, Labour is also coming after people’s businesses. Through the changes to inheritance tax relief, agricultural property relief and business property relief, the Government have destroyed one of the sole business environments that our communities and businesses rely on—the ability to pass an asset on to the next generation and for them to earn an income from it. Across my constituency, soft furniture makers such as Fibreline, brewers, farmers, hotels and those involved in the hospitality sector have all actively taken the decision to slow the amount of investment they are willing to put in to grow their own businesses. Why? Because of the threats coming out of the Labour Government’s previous Budget in October last year and the Budget coming down the line.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He mentions the hospitality sector. Does he recognise the Government’s cruel decision to reduce the business rates discount for the hospitality sector from 75% to 40%? It does not sound too bad, but it is actually a tax increase of 140% on the struggling hospitality sector. What impact does he think that has on future investment plans?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many of our family businesses, whether in the hospitality sector or in other sectors, are actively withholding a level of investment in their businesses which they want to grow and thrive. I have spoken to many farming businesses and many family businesses in my constituency who have worked out what their BPR or their APR liability is likely to be over a 10-year plan, and are therefore holding the level of investment back, because they may have to give it to the Chancellor and not invest it for the future growth of their business. That is not good for the health of the communities and businesses we represent.

Then there is council tax, with the looming threat of council tax revaluations potentially coming down the line, raising the council tax liability on many constituents, with properties potentially moving into higher tax bands. Bradford residents, who include those in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley, have already had our council tax raised by 10%. This threat is being added by the Labour Government when council tax is increasing. And then there is the cut to business rates relief, which is impacting many of our businesses.

With the threat of a revaluation process coming down the line, I want to raise the case of the Valuation Office Agency. Just this morning, I spoke to the Rock family, who have developed Providence Park in Keighley, with a huge amount of public funding going into the project. Despite the project completing its construction phase in April, they are now being told that despite an application being submitted, the valuation office is not even progressing with providing the business rate liability. It will therefore be more difficult for the Rock family to let those business premises. What is the Minister doing right now to put pressure on the valuation office to get a grip, pull its finger out and get those rates looked at, not just for Providence Park, but for the many businesses up and down the country that are struggling to get understanding from the valuation office?

This debate is about property taxes. We know that the Government have indicated that they are going to come for property owners in the Budget that is coming down the line—they indicated it in the previous Budget through the changes they made to inheritance tax. The Government must change course for the health and the good of the economic prosperity of our country.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Like my family and friends and the people of my city, I saw at first hand the economic failures and harms done to the people of this country under 14 years of the previous Government—harm to our council services, armed forces and public services, the special educational needs and disabilities system, NHS waiting lists, rents and mortgage costs, wages, prison place numbers, police numbers and safety on our streets. It was 14 years of made-up unfunded promises and commitments—14 years in which the previous Government gave up on Pompey, on Britain and on everyone in it, leaving us as a Government to clear up their mess. Fourteen years cannot be cleaned up overnight—it takes time—but, Madam Deputy Speaker, cleaning it up we are.

I welcome the investment in my constituency, including £13.8 billion for flood defences to protect our homes; £2.2 billion for the defence sector, which will protect jobs in my city and provide greater opportunities for our small and medium-sized enterprises; £4.8 million for better buses, allowing better transport; £2.7 million on fixing potholes to repair the crumbling streets we live on and stop the damage being done to our vehicles; £2.3 million for upgrading schools and college buildings so that our young people have a safe environment to learn; £1.9 million in additional SEND funding to start the process of patching up the mess, which the previous Government said was a lose-lose situation; and £1.2 million in additional funding for temporary accommodation to house some of the most desperate families in my city. We are seeing investment into solar panels on public buildings to reduce costs and protect the environment, safer streets programmes in North End and Cosham, in addition to named police officers, as well as free school meals and breakfast clubs to support pupils.

[Robbie Moore]

I just want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about free school meals, because these meals are not free. I spoke with a school in my constituency just last week that has been mandated to provide these so-called free school meals. However, the meals are having to come out of the school’s own budget. Can we change the narrative associated with the rhetoric that this Labour Government are putting out?

[Amanda Martin]

As a former teacher, I say no. I will continue with the term free school meals.

We are also seeing breakfast clubs to support pupils and families at the start of every day, additional nursery allocations to help working parents with the crazy cost of childcare, and investment in our NHS. All of those measures are the result of having a Labour Government and two Labour MPs in Portsmouth. I could go on, because that is just the tip of the iceberg of the investment and initiatives that are very much needed by the people of my city. This is reality, not imagination, speculation or politicking—not, in the words of the motion today, “considering”, but action.

None of that would have been possible without the decisions of this Government. Some, I admit, have been difficult, and some have been very necessary, such as placing the burden of tax on the very wealthiest, with private jet tax up 50%, stamp duty on second homes, changes to inheritance tax on big landowners, the scrapping of non-dom status, the ending of offshore trusts to stop inheritance tax avoidance, and VAT on private schools. Does the Minister agree that the investments like those in Portsmouth North are possible only because of the decisions and actions we have taken to raise revenue?

Those decisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, were repeatedly opposed by the Opposition. In bringing this debate, which is—in the words of Willy Wonka—one of “pure imagination”, they appear not to be considering an alternative, but to be going back to the status quo of 14 years of cuts and damage to Britain. This debate has been full of amnesia and sloping shoulders, with no regret and not one apology. It is a debate set to talk Britain and its people down—a debate ignoring the most positive things this Government have brought to the people of my city and this country.

Taxes

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

In my constituency there are dozens of hard-working family businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy and key to our local identity. These business owners get up early, go to bed late, work weekends, employ hundreds of local people and contribute hugely to our local high streets, local communities and local economy. But this Government seem desperate to squeeze every single penny out of those family businesses and into the hands of the Chancellor. The rise in employer national insurance puts a huge strain on the wage bill, especially when coupled with the rise in the minimum wage.

That is squeezing every single family business, as well as schools and hospices. Indeed, last weekend I took part in a local fundraising event—the Oxenhope straw race—which raises money for our local hospice, the Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in the Worth Valley. Every year they do fundraising, but they tell me that instead of the money going to provide end-of-life care, it now goes straight to the Treasury through employer national insurance. The sad fact is that the large sums of money going to charities is not providing the support that is needed because it is going directly to the Treasury.

The business rate relief reduction is impacting many hard-working businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. The inheritance tax challenges are impacting many of our farming businesses and family farming businesses through slashing the 100% relief on agricultural property relief and business property relief to the £1 million threshold.

That is where the naivety kicks in. When we consider the size of the average farm in England—about 200 acres—and value the farmland, the house, the cottage, the growing crops, the machinery and the livestock, we reach well above the £1 million threshold, therefore exposing nearly every farming business to an inheritance tax liability. Those hard-working businesses make a return of less than 1%, if any at all, yet Labour Members say that they must have the weight of responsibility on their shoulders. That is a disgrace.

[Phil Brickell]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

I will take a quick intervention from the hon. Member, but I hope that he will justify why those hard-working family farms and businesses in Keighley and Ilkley, who get up day in, day out, have to shoulder the burden for the mistakes that this Labour Government are making. Will he answer that point?

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He is the third consecutive Conservative Member to stand up and speak, but I have yet to hear what proposals his party wants to bring in to raise revenue or what services it wants to cut. In my contribution, I made a conscious effort to set out three constructive proposals for the Treasury to consider, and I challenged Conservative Members because there was a dearth of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order.

[Robbie Moore]

I am sure that the Government Whips were watching the hon. Gentleman and making a note that he will be in line for a job, and I saw the Minister quaking in his boots at the thought of those bizarre recommendations. The point is that the Labour Government do not realise that all these tax increases are hitting the many hard-working businesses across every constituency represented in this House. Shame on the Government for bringing them forward.

No matter how elaborate the rain dance or how impressive the Government press releases, growth will not come, precisely because of the decisions that the Chancellor has taken. We need a reset; we need a new direction; we need to limit spending so that we can cut tax, not consistently raise it. Until the Government realise that, I am afraid for all the family businesses up and down the country, which are being penalised time and again by this Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This week, the 19% tariff on imports of US ethanol falls to zero through the 1.4 billion litre quota negotiated by this Labour Government, which represents the size of the UK’s entire ethanol market. That will have a hugely damaging impact on our rural economy, UK jobs and the NHS, with Government effectively offshoring the benefits of ethanol production and its by-products to the US. What conversations are the Chancellor and her team having with this green energy sector, in which a huge number of jobs are now at stake in Teesside and Hull?

[James Murray]

Of course, our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade are having conversations with those businesses and industries that may be affected. I hope the hon. Member welcomes the trade deal that we got with the US—an economic deal that is so important for our prosperity and will see us being the only country to avoid some of the tariffs that are affecting all other countries around the world.