Inheritance Tax

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about politics being about choices and priorities. Indeed, in a world of difficult choices, the Conservatives choose to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest estates, while everyone else is being asked to pick up the bill.

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

I worry that this Labour Government are living in some sort of parallel universe. I met one of my manufacturing businesses in Keighley recently, which employs nearly 250 people. It has already worked out that its business property relief liability over and above the £2.5 million threshold is about £1 million. The advice it received is either to sell plant or machinery to mitigate that liability imposed on it by this Government, or to sell shares in its business. Either way, people are losing control of their business, or losing productivity from having to sell plant or machinery, and that is the result of a choice that has been made by this Labour Government. How can the Minister sit there and describe those as fair choices to the bosses of that business, when up to 250 people are now likely to be exposed to the risk of losing their jobs in my constituency?

[James Murray]

Without commenting on the circumstances of an individual taxpayer, the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million before any inheritance tax is due on relevant agricultural or business property assets provides substantial protection for people from those charges. As I said earlier, there is a 50% relief which is uncapped above that level, and payment is allowed over 10 years interest-free. The balance we are striking in the policy that was introduced in April provides protection for family farms and small businesses while ensuring a contribution to the public finances, underscoring our fiscal responsibility, which is so important for better public services and a stable economy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like all Members of the House, I am sure, I do an incredible amount of outreach with many of the family businesses that we are lucky to represent as constituency MPs, from our manufacturers and engineers, to those in our garden centres and breweries, and our hoteliers and farmers. They are telling me constantly that, from the last two Budgets alone, business and operating businesses in this country is difficult. We have seen an increase in employer national insurance, an increase in the minimum wage, and everyone over and above that minimum wage wanting the increased differential. Business rates now apply much more strongly than they ever did under the previous Conservative Government.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 effectively now makes it much more challenging for an employer to take on an individual and offer that young person an opportunity. My inbox—like, I am sure, those of many hon. Friends and probably of Labour Members—has been filled with emails from people representing those with disabilities or special educational needs, who are now struggling to get a job because of the Employment Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult. It is challenging.

Then, of course, we have the additional issue of the changes to inheritance tax, which impact all family businesses. A huge amount of pressure was rightly put on the Government, initially to increase the threshold, but ultimately in wanting 100% relief for agricultural and business properties. We saw movement from the threshold of £1 million to £2.5 million, and we now have the bizarre scenario that for someone who is married, the threshold will be £5 million—the first time we have ever seen a differential under IHT.

The reality of that scenario is stifled investment, because many manufacturing and engineering businesses in my constituency are now saying, “Rather than investing in growth as we wanted to do and had programmed in over the next five or 10 years, we are stopping that. We now have to think about mitigating a tax liability at 20% over and above the £2.5 million, which we were not programming into place.” Ultimately, that is having an impact on growth in my Keighley constituency.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been involved in a family farm and have created a family business—[Interruption.] Thank you. One of the really odd aspects of this issue is that the Government seem to be confusing business assets with personal wealth. How can that possibly be fair?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because that was exactly the narrative that his farmers put to me when I was lucky enough to visit them in Norfolk late last week. If someone is running a family business, the rate of return on their capital might be 1%, but they are lucky if they are getting that. Therefore, there is no return, yet when a valuation of that farm is made on death—not just of the farmland; there might be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, growing crops, stocks in store, machinery and livestock—they are well above that threshold of £2.5 million or £5 million if they are married, and the farming business is then subject to a liability. That is tough, which is why I was so shocked when not one Liberal Democrat MP voted against the implementation of the fertiliser tax, which has made it much more difficult for those family farming businesses.

Then there was the cliff edge in April 2026, when no real warning was given to many of those family businesses. A cruel cliff edge existed, and as a matter of fact—it gives me no pleasure to say this—lives have been lost as a result of the decisions that this Labour Government have made. There has been suicide recorded in coroner’s reports as a result of this Labour Government’s choices through the implementation of inheritance tax changes.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I wonder if he spotted this quote?

“Although many of my farmers tell me the earlier U-turns made a substantial difference, others are still deeply worried about the impact this policy will have when passing a sustainable farm business to the next generation”.

He might be aware that those are the words of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—a Labour Member; they are part of his call for the Labour Government to completely scrap their plans to abolish agricultural property relief. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Labour Government should scrap it completely.

[Robbie Moore]

That is absolutely right. It is good to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) in his place. I hope that he will intervene in the debate and make it clear that he is also advocating for this cruel tax to be scrapped, just as the Conservatives are doing. There is hope when at least one Labour Member is willing to be bold enough to stand up against this Labour Government.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about suicide in this debate. Where was he when we heard the reports of the austerity implemented by his Government causing suicide? Are any Members on the Opposition Benches willing to defend that record? When invoking suicide in this debate, they have to acknowledge their own record.

[Robbie Moore]

I also regret the fact that I am talking about that issue. However, many farming representatives, including those from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association, gave clear warnings to this Government that if the cliff edge associated with this tax became a reality in April 2026, there would be emotional consequences, such as anxiety. I regret that I have raised the matter, but unfortunately it is absolutely the case that suicide has taken place.

There will be a moment of hope in two weeks’ time when the Budget comes before the House: the Government could bring in 100% relief of APR and business property relief again. I urge the Government to do so and to listen to those strong calls from the industry. The hon. Gentleman asks where I was during austerity. Well, I have been a Member of Parliament for only six and a bit years. Before that, I was not in this place making any of those decisions.

There are also issues around the changes to the implementation of inheritance tax. The first payment of the tax will be due within six months of death, but the asset base will first have to be valued, so inevitably there will be challenges. The district valuers do not have the capacity to deal with the level of challenge that will come from those handling the probate valuations that will inevitably have to take place.

It worries me that, as the IHT debate has taken place in the House over the past two years, hardly any Labour MPs have stood up and advocated for the manufacturing, engineering and hotelier businesses that, I suspect, employ many of their constituents, providing them with their salaries and with opportunities to continue in a working environment. That worries me because I feel that the narrative has been lost to Labour Members. We have got time before the Budget for that narrative to change, and I firmly stand with the Conservative position that 100% relief for APR and BPR must be put back in place, and I ask the Government to listen and do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate. Some of them definitely had the volume to enable all of us in the House to hear them. I thank the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is herself a former Treasury Minister, for her contributions. Given her experience, having spent some time working in the Treasury, we may have expected at least a hint of self-awareness from Opposition Front-Bench Members. The previous Government left Britain with crumbling public services, broken public finances and the worst Parliament on record for living standards.

Today, the Conservatives have come to the House demanding more unfunded tax cuts, worth up to £11 billion a year, without any clear plan whatsoever for how they would pay for them other than a vague commitment in the motion to cutting public spending. We all know what that means: it means cutting spending on the NHS, cutting spending on our schools and cutting spending on our police. That is what they did when they had 14 years in charge. We know that if they ever get on to the Government Benches again, their first port of call will be taking away money from our public services, which constituents up and down the country rely on.

The Conservatives’ plans would do nothing to help ordinary families with the cost of living and would benefit the very wealthiest estates. I do not think it is the right priority to give a £3.74 million tax cut to someone living in a £10 million mansion, but it is clear that their priority is to give massive tax cuts to people in £10 million homes. We will not take that decision on the Labour side of the House.

Over and again, the Conservative party sets out fantasy spending cuts that nobody believes it will deliver, and which clearly demonstrate its inability to add up or even to watch what the Government are doing. For example, some Opposition Members talked about changes to welfare spending and how the Conservatives plan to bring back face-to-face assessments. Yes, that would be a very good idea, and that is why the Government are doing that after Conservative Members scrapped face-to-face assessments during the pandemic and did not get round to reinstating them. We are bringing them back to ensure that we can move people off welfare and into work, because that is a Labour value and we support work.

In stark contrast to the Conservative party, it is because of the action that the Government have taken since coming to office that our economy is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges. Earlier this week, the IMF upgraded our forecast of growth for this year. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. The IMF has also projected that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2031, and we are on track to cut the deficit by more than any other G7 economy between 2025 and 2030. From 2029, we will have the lowest borrowing in the G7.

[Robbie Moore]

Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s long-term mentor Lord Blunkett, who last month at the Countryside Alliance’s rural reset conference said that the Prime Minister should use his time in the premiership to change the inheritance tax on farms because that was a mistake that the Labour party had made?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours.

This Government will deliver good growth in every postcode and provide breathing space for families and businesses. Underneath all that, we will continue to focus on fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty, and we will continue to control borrowing so we can bring down inflation and reduce the long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on the priorities of working people.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 General Committees

[Pippa Heylings]

That is exactly the point that I am raising, which is about uncertainty. The National Farmers’ Union has estimated exactly that cost, which will ultimately be borne by British farmers. At a time when they face such volatility and uncertainty, we should be strengthening our food security, not undermining it. We would like the Government first to tell farmers what that rate would be.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will continue. We would also like the Government, potentially, to introduce a temporary derogation for imported fertilisers.

Unlike Conservative colleagues, we have a second concern about the slow progress in linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Without that linkage, the UK CBAM will be more complex, more administratively burdensome and more costly than it needs to be. Businesses trading with our largest trading partner should not be forced to navigate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy because the Government have failed to make progress in this area. A linked UK-EU carbon market would make the system simpler, more efficient and more effective, so we call on the Minister to make securing ETS linkage with the European Union an urgent priority at the upcoming UK-EU reset meeting.

These are not objections to the principle of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They are practical questions and improvements that would make the policy fairer for British farmers, less burdensome for British businesses and more effective in achieving its environmental objectives. If the Government want the mechanism to succeed, will they please ensure that it supports our climate ambitions and the long-term competitiveness of British agriculture and industry?

[Robbie Moore]

We are about to vote on a statutory instrument that will impose an additional tax on our farmers, going over and above the many other overheads that they are experiencing as a result of this Government. Fertiliser is already one of the most volatile and expensive inputs for many of our farmers and growers. Industry analysts project that the CBAM will add an additional £50 to £75 return on imported nitrous fertiliser, inflating farmers’ procurement costs by up to 20% to 25%. I would like to understand from the Minister what financial assessment the Government have made of the increase in costs associated with producing much of the food that this country likes to eat, and indeed much of the food that is exported too.

There is also a structural flaw. Analysis has rightly identified that CBAM applies a tax on fertiliser inputs but does not directly provide a tax on imported goods. It is putting a tax only on the fertiliser that our UK farmers are utilising to produce food in this country, not on the imported food that we are bringing into this country. It is therefore not creating a level playing field.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I was not in the House in 2021—I think the hon. Gentleman was—when the Conservative Government introduced the emissions trading scheme, which introduced the carbon levy on UK producers of fertilisers and other such produce. Is the hon. Gentleman against the ETS now, and if so did he speak against it at the time, or is he just against levelling the playing field for UK producers? What has changed?

[Robbie Moore]

The Conservatives are clear that we will vote against the implementation of the CBAM. We are against the increase in costs associated with this tax on our fertiliser. A level playing field must be generated, but that is not what this legislation will implement.

[Pippa Heylings]

Certainty!

[The Chair]

Order.

[Robbie Moore]

It is frightening that the Liberal Democrats will, I suspect, be voting today to impose an additional tax on our farmers on the cost of producing food.

Foreign growers outside the UK and EU can continue to use cheap, high-carbon fertilisers without penalty, while that food has direct access to UK markets and supermarkets, undercutting our British farmers. The UK has virtually no domestic mass scale fertiliser production left, so there is no option but to import that fertiliser into this country, which will carry increased costs through this tax being implemented by the Government. The tax cannot protect the domestic sector; its functions are therefore a direct penalty on UK growers.

I would also like to understand what assessment the Government have made of environmental implications. The mechanism is expected to apply a flat-rate tax based on weight or broad carbon categories. Industry specialists have noted that in this format it is likely to incentivise—accidentally, or maybe this is the Government’s intention—the use of nutrient-dense raw urea rather than cheaper, clean liquid options. That is completely contrary to DEFRA’s existing air quality policies, which actively discourage raw urea, due to high ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions. What assessment have the Government made of the roll-out of CBAM in relation to DEFRA’s own air quality policies, because they seem to be in contradiction?

Will the Minister outline again when the rate will be announced, with its implication for many of our UK farmers? What timeframe will apply for implementation? What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all the other increases to the cost of food production under this Government? What interplay is there with DEFRA’s own assessments, undertaken with Minette Batters’s profitability review, and with the air quality targets that have already been set by DEFRA?

I reiterate that I do not support this carbon tax. The Opposition will vote firmly against it when the Committee divides on the motion.

Financial Inclusion: Young People

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate, and congratulate him on his speech—I thought he made some excellent points. Many young people are entering adulthood without the knowledge, confidence and access to the financial services that they need to build secure futures. Some 70% of adults believe that better financial education in their younger years would have improved their ability to manage their finances, and two thirds of young people believe that the lack of financial education has played a role in their amassing the debts they hold.

I wish to talk through a few issues that have been raised with me, particularly regarding access to apprenticeships and the challenges that those in our rural economy face with increased costs. I recently visited Keighley college in my constituency, where I met the principal Kevin O’Hare. Kevin highlighted to me a key issue that is putting young people undertaking apprenticeships at a financial disadvantage compared with those who decide to stay in full-time education, if they are from financially deprived backgrounds.

Currently, young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 16 continue to be treated as dependent children for the purpose of a range of household benefits. In contrast, young people who enter an apprenticeship are generally treated as employees, which can lead to a loss of income-related support linked to household benefits. For some low-income families, the resulting loss of benefits can exceed the apprentice’s initial earnings, meaning that a household might be financially worse off when a young person chooses an apprenticeship, compared with had they remained in full-time education.

I am keen to understand what conversations the Minister is having with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education on that classification, because that appears to run counter to the Government’s objective of promoting apprenticeships as a prestigious pathway that is equal to academic study. It may disproportionately affect participation among young people from disadvantaged communities. I have seen that in the casework coming into my office. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of household benefit losses on participation in apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds? If the Minister cannot answer that in her speech, I would be grateful if she would write to me.

The second issue that I want to raise follows a meeting that I had this weekend with Silsden and Skipton young farmers club, whose members were keen to raise the cost of car insurance. Young people in rural areas face a crisis of skyrocketing insurance premiums, which makes it difficult for them to get around. Limited public transport makes owning a car essential, but they face huge costs. They cannot take up job opportunities and education if they are priced out of the market.

The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about the mental health implications when young people feel the strain of debt, whether from going through education or simply because of the cost of living in rural areas. The key underlying point is the Government’s failure to grow new opportunities for young people. Unemployment has risen to 5% and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. In January to March 2026, an additional 110,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed than in the same period in 2025. Young people at Keighley college who wish to pursue opportunities through apprenticeships face being worse off. That is further exacerbated by the rise in employers’ national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created challenges.

Fiscal inclusion is about education and, crucially, about fostering an economy that rewards hard-working and ambitious young people, rather than punishing them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on those points.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful that my first chance to speak as the Minister in Westminster Hall is in such a thorough and rich debate on this topic. Let me join in with the tradition of talking about our first job by saying that I spent many a happy afternoon doing a Saturday job on the high street in a sadly now-closed women’s retailer. I am very proud that jobs like that still exist: it gave me a thorough and deep understanding of the importance of the high street.

It would be impossible to cover or respond to all of the rich and broad points that have been raised this afternoon. I also want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) a chance to respond; I thank him for securing this debate and for all his work to focus the Government and colleagues on young people and the particular challenges that they face.

We have had a really broad range of contributions, including from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting). It has been a powerful debate. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to affordable financial products and services to enable them to engage in the economy. In responding, I want to talk briefly about youth employment and support for mental health, and then try to get through the questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford.

Following the Milburn report and the contributions made today, we have to be clear that the Government are in no way complacent about youth unemployment. We are absolutely determined to unlock the potential of young people across the UK. Funding for employment support is increasing to more than £3.75 billion per year by 2028-29. At the last Budget, the Government committed to more than £1.5 billion to back young people through the youth guarantee and invest additional funding in the growth and skills levy.

This afternoon, we have heard interesting suggestions as to how that work can be undertaken, whether it is in youth hubs or in other youth settings. It is the responsibility of us all to consider how that investment can be made most effective, with industry working with the Government to provide jobs guarantees for a wide range of people and ensure that there are youth jobs grants under which businesses receive £3,000 for every young person they hire between the ages of 18 and 24. This is a partnership approach between industry and Government, and one that I believe will make a real difference.

I also want to talk about the significant issue of mental health and its prevalence in society, particularly among young people. Today, we are talking specifically about its interaction with financial inclusion. The strategy recognises that mental health can significantly affect people’s ability to access and use financial services, along with the interrelationship between people’s mental health and their attitudes and ability to work with particular financial products. It is therefore important that we strengthen the support available for individuals through interventions to improve debt collection practices, expand the breathing space scheme to support individuals in problem debt during a mental health crisis, and examine how pre-existing mental health conditions are treated in the travel insurance market. Each of those approaches is very much under way.

[Robbie Moore]

I welcome the Minister to her place. On the issue of mental health, many young people in my constituency raise the challenge of getting into work. With youth unemployment now at record levels, does she realise that one of the best ways of tackling mental health issues is to enable people to get into the job market in the first place, so that they do not have the additional pressure and anxiety of not being able to earn funds? Does she not recognise that things like employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and minimum wage increases have exacerbated the unemployment figures? Will she work with industry to address the concerns that are being raised with me and, I am sure, with her in her new role?

[Rachel Blake]

As the hon. Member will expect, I disagree with his characterisation of employer NI and the Employment Rights Act. I remind him of the positive impact that both those measures are having on workers, our NHS and the services that they are funding, and of the specific ways in which they operate with young people. His evidence base therefore does not entirely stack up.

I turn to the issue of building up a credit record. The Government are continuing to engage with the FCA on its work with industry to tackle thin credit files. As part of that, the FCA has recently consulted on introducing mandatory credit information sharing by regulated firms, which would mean that any firm reporting to one designated credit reference agency must report the same information to all such agencies, ensuring full and consistent information on a consumer’s file.

To give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford a chance to respond, I will rattle through actions on insurance. The Government recognise the important role of insurance in supporting individuals’ financial resilience. There are pilots among social renters, led by Fair4All Finance, and the Government also recognise that affordability is a key issue.

We have had quite a thorough discussion about scam ads. The Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year, and once they are implemented it will be able to impose fines of up to £80 million or 10% of qualifying revenue, whichever is greater.

I certainly want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. There is much more to cover, and I commit to doing so in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and will be happy to continue the conversation.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Blake]

No, I have finished.

[Robbie Moore]

But we have half an hour.

[Rachel Blake]

No, only three minutes.

Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. My Keighley and Ilkley constituency is home to several businesses that have major concerns about the impact of this statutory instrument on them and their employees. Airedale Springs, Olicana Products and GESIPA have all been in contact with me about the proposed new tariffs, by which they have been completely blindsided. One of the team at GESIPA described the impact of the tariffs as “devastating”. The managing director of Olicana Products has warned that if this heavy-handed legislation passes unchanged, it will trigger a catastrophic chain reaction across every single UK industry that is reliant on these metals.

Those businesses and business leaders have contacted me and many of my Conservative colleagues as they are deeply concerned about the steel industry. In their correspondence with me, they have been crystal clear that these measures, should they go ahead, will increase costs, reduce supply, weaken competitiveness and directly threaten thousands of manufacturing jobs, while doing little to increase domestic steel production. They are also concerned that the legislation is being rushed. They have had no time to adjust to the mechanisms that have been brought through, which will have severe cash-flow implications for their businesses.

Let me read out directly some of the emails that have been sent to me. Olicana Products said:

“We all want a thriving, strong UK steel sector. However, this poorly planned law will achieve the exact opposite. By choking off essential products”—

and imports that are coming in to their business—

“it will decimate our business and furthermore cause domestic steel consumption to plummet.

We need to act immediately to force a government U-turn before irreplaceable damage is done to our business, our livelihoods and our economy.”

Those are not my words. They are the words of a managing director who employs many of my Keighley and Ilkley constituents.

Diana Scholefield, the managing director of GESIPA—a business that has been running in my constituency for 52 years—contacted me because she is deeply worried about cash-flow challenges. The company tells me that, despite the increase in employer national insurance and minimum wage having a direct impact on its cash flow, this is the biggest challenge that it has faced in the 52 years it has been running. That will potentially have a direct impact on employment levels across my constituency.

In another email, Sean Parkinson, the managing partner of Airedale Springs, reiterated to me that:

“Our steel material suppliers consider that UK steel production capacity does not exist to replace many of the products being restricted”,

and that

“these measures will increase costs, reduce supply, weaken competitiveness and directly threaten thousands of UK manufacturing jobs”.

I say to the Minister—and all the Labour MPs sat opposite who seem to be more interested in looking at their mobile phones than at the detail of this legislation—that the explanatory memorandum states specifically that this delegated legislation is expected to have

“negative impacts on downstream businesses that use steel.”

It also states that

“the amendments in this instrument are likely to result in higher prices for steel products and an increase in costs for user industries”

and that:

“Outside of the steel and fabricated metals industries, there are likely to be impacts on the machinery and electrical equipment, aerospace, and automotive sectors. The largest user of steel, the construction industry, could also face an increase in costs.”

The memorandum also states that the instrument is most likely to impact “small and micro businesses”.

As we prepare to vote on this key piece of delegated legislation, which is due to come into force on 1 July, let me ask the Minister and Labour MPs a question. If they have read the impact assessment, as I assume they have—there is no costed impact assessment associated with the regulations, which is, I suspect, because the Government do not know what the consequences will be and do not want to put that into the public domain—why on earth are they comfortable voting for this legislation when they know its negative implications for many constituents employed in the manufacturing sector and for UK jobs? I certainly will not be supporting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank Members for their contributions and questions in this debate on an important statutory instrument. It is right and proper that the Opposition have the chance to question and interrogate the Government’s decision making on the significant change that we are bringing forward.

It is worth understanding that the Government have been engaging in detail with industry on this since the announcement in March. My understanding is that a number of codes—nine, I think—have been changed since that announcement. That is as a result of engagement and meetings with industry—with those downstream sectors—by the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), and others on whether or not it is possible for them to access UK-produced steel.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, asked me about codes 14 and 27, which are of particular relevance to the aerospace and defence industries. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), was asked about that earlier today. He has been meeting with that sector today, I believe, to talk about the impact on them and to consider what the Government can do.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary also asked about a review. It is the Government’s intention to keep this under review, with a formal review point after 12 months, as he noted. On the quota levels, I take the point that there is uncertainty at the moment, given that we are approaching 1 July. I hope that, in line with good policymaking principles, we will be able to set out that detail as soon as possible for the businesses affected.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is always good at representing the businesses in his constituency and making his points clearly and forcefully. I commend him for his remarks today.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, but I was just praising the hon. Gentleman!

[Robbie Moore]

Could the Minister explain, not only to me but to the businesses in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, why, if the explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislation clearly states that these regulations are

“expected to have negative impacts on downstream businesses that use steel”,

he and his Labour party are comfortable introducing it?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I was just coming to that point. As the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Exchequer Secretary have pointed out, the Government are not hiding from the impacts of the measures on some downstream sectors and businesses. He has just read out the explanatory memorandum that the Government themselves produced. The Government have taken a strategic view: in the end, we need a tariff and quota system that protects domestic steel so that, if the worst happens and we need to ensure that we have domestic supply in times of crisis for vital production here in the UK, we have it. Hon. Members know that we have seen a significant reduction in steel production in the UK—I believe a reduction of 50% over the past 10 years—and the representations that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and individual businesses and business groups have made to Ministers over recent months have of course been taken into account and considered, but on balance the Government’s view on this strategic assessment is that, in the end, strong production and a strong downstream sector go hand in hand.

Mountain Rescue

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart); as a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I share her determination that our constituents should be able to enjoy the nearby countryside safely and responsibly. I hope she agrees that, whether it is the Peak district, on her side of Greater Manchester, or Winter hill, on mine, we have some of the best natural landscapes our country has to offer.

As an officer of the APPGs on outdoor learning and on outdoor recreation and access to nature, as well as a passionate outdoor pursuits enthusiast, I know from my own experience that, sadly, mountain rescue teams do not always get the attention they deserve in this place. However, when things go wrong, it is local mountain rescue volunteers who are relied on to get people out of trouble—volunteers giving up their time, often in the worst weather, at all hours, day and night.

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

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I have participated many a time in the Allendale challenge up in Northumberland to raise money for the North of Tyne Mountain Rescue Team. I thank all the volunteers who get involved, wherever in the country they are helping out. Since it is volunteers who are giving up their time, one of the key recommendations of the report from the APPG for volunteer rescue services was for the Government to recognise the mental health and wellbeing challenges they face. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be worthy of the Government to look at how they can support volunteers through the challenges they face when they are assisting in rescue efforts, wherever they are in the country?

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about mental health support for volunteers, and I will come to that shortly.

Volunteers are giving up their time to keep others safe. Our mountain rescue teams respond to thousands of incidents every year, from missing persons to injured walkers, and support the response to floods and major incidents. As has been recognised, they are largely—almost exclusively—funded by donations. The same people who are rescuing others are out raising the very money they need to fund their vehicles and equipment and to support their training. That places a heavy burden on those volunteers and their communities.

That is why I was delighted back in the autumn when the Chancellor confirmed she had heeded my calls and those of others here today to exempt mountain rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. That practical step will save each team thousands of pounds, show some recognition of the roles that teams play and allow them to rightly focus their fundraising efforts—in Bolton’s case, on the £60,000 a year it costs to maintain their vehicles and kit.

I know from speaking to the brilliant Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which is based out of an old stable block at Ladybridge Hall in Heaton, that that exemption will make a significant difference. Since its formation in 1968, Bolton mountain rescue has covered a wide and varied terrain: almost 310 square miles stretching from Darwen to Manchester airport and from Wigan to Manchester. Its work is not limited to remote moorland: the team is regularly called out to search for missing people, support police operations, respond to incidents in urban fringe areas and assist during severe weather events. Indeed, over the Easter weekend, it was on site at the annual Rivington Pike race, one of the most historic fell races in the country, which saw more than 350 runners from across the north-west and beyond participate in a sprint to the pike and then back down to the finish line on Lever Park Avenue in Horwich.

Mountain rescue teams are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Members hold down full-time jobs and have families and other commitments, and they drop everything when that call comes in. I hope colleagues will join me in recognising the brilliant and selfless work they undertake. Mountain rescue teams such as mine in Bolton have our back, so it is only right that we should have theirs.

I would therefore like to gently press the Minister on four areas where she might work with colleagues across Government on additional support for mountain rescue teams. First, although I welcome the event healthcare standard, which was launched this month following the Manchester Arena inquiry and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I have flagged concerns to the Minister’s counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), that the requirements may have unintended adverse impacts on mountain rescue teams.

Under that standard, regulated organisations that comprise healthcare professionals would need to register with the Care Quality Commission. Prior to that requirement, temporary sporting events such as fell races and local mountain bike events, which are covered by mountain rescue, were excluded. Mountain rescue teams will be brought within the regulated perimeter, with all the administrative requirements that come with that. Will the Minister therefore work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the new requirements on healthcare professionals, as they apply to mountain rescue teams, are proportionate and do not impose a disproportionate cost? I will happily share more information with her after the debate.

Secondly, mountain rescue teams across England and Wales are collectively spending around £450,000 a year on insurance covering public liability, employer’s liability, vehicles, medical malpractice and trustees’ responsibilities. On top of that, individual teams often have to pay individual costs locally for buildings, equipment and extra personnel. That is a huge amount to raise through charitable means, and it is hard to justify when these teams are in reality part of our emergency response framework. Extending Crown indemnity, as has been mentioned, or a similar statutory insurance arrangement to mountain rescue teams would make an immediate difference. It would free up resources that could be directly reinvested in life-saving capability, helping my constituents and people across the country who find themselves in peril, often with no other emergency service able to reach them.

Thirdly, let me flag rehabilitation. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in difficult and often dangerous environments, with steep terrain and frequent poor weather. They take part in physically demanding rescues, and the risks are real. If a police officer or member of the armed forces is injured in the line of duty, they have access to established services. Bizarrely, mountain rescue volunteers do not have the same support. Allowing our mountain rescue teams to access existing rehab services is a simple, practical step the Government could take to support them. It would not require new structures or significant funding; it would just recognise that these volunteers face comparable risks and deserve comparable support when something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to look into that proposal as a priority.

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 & 3rd reading
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.