Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member.

According to an estimate from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, the policy will impact a third of all farms and three quarters of dairy farms. Think about that for a moment. Three quarters of our dairy farms—the heart of our agrifood export industry—could be hit by a tax change that would make succession financially impossible.

The knock-on effects will be vast. Meat factories will face reduced throughput and rising costs, forcing scale-back and possibly relocation. Feed and supply companies will see demand collapse, threatening jobs and investment. It is not just farms that will be hit, and this is not a matter of large estates or wealthy landowners. The average Northern Ireland farm is about 40 hectares. Land values in some counties, including my own, are in excess of £30,000 per acre. It does not take much arithmetic to see that many modest family farms would easily surpass the £1 million threshold.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point about the impact on Northern Irish farms, and a similar thing will happen in South Norfolk. I would like to present solutions to this problem. I posit—and she may want to comment on this later on—that the Centre for Tax Reform’s policy would actually raise the amount of income for the Treasury by 71%. I also encourage the hon. Lady to look at separating APR and BPR, pausing the process and looking at whether we can raise revenues and protect the family farm.

[Carla Lockhart]

I commend the Member for the stand he is taking and for encouraging the Minister in this way. We are not talking about millionaires; we are talking about hard-working family farmers who live modestly and work from dawn to dusk to feed us all. If these proposals proceed, we will inevitably see forced sales of land simply to pay the tax liability when a family member dies. That means the fragmentation of farms, the loss of viable holdings and the disappearance of many small-to-medium sized family farms.

The Government talk about a fair and balanced approach, but what about the 80-year-old who has not got time to plan? Did my brother think my dad would pass away at age 66? Absolutely not. Does a family think they are going to lose a son or a daughter at age 40, 41 or 42? They do not.

This will deter young farmers from taking on the responsibility of a business that leaves them saddled with debt before they have even begun. We cannot afford to drive the next generation away from farming. Once that chain of succession is broken, it is almost impossible to restore.

This debate is not just about fairness for rural families: it is about food security, which is a matter of national importance. We have learned through recent global shocks—the pandemic, supply-chain disruption and now inflationary pressures—that domestic food production is essential. To undermine family farming through ill-judged taxation would be a profound mistake that this Government will rue. Certainly, rural MPs will rue it in the days and weeks to come. It would make us more dependent on imports and less resilient to crisis, while sending a terrible message to those who feed our nation.

The policy is being advanced in the name of fairness, but there is nothing fair about it. Farming families have worked their land for generations, paid their taxes and cared for the countryside. They are not speculators; they are custodians. APR is not, as it is presented in public discourse, a loophole; it is a lifeline that allows farms to pass from parent to child without having to be broken apart. To impose a new tax burden at the point of bereavement is not reform; it is punishment for choosing to farm.

Let us be clear: the yield from this policy—even in Treasury terms—would be marginal compared to the cost it would impose on rural communities and the wider economy. In short, it is bad economics and bad morality. Across Northern Ireland, opposition to this proposal is widespread and heartfelt. From the Ulster Farmers’ Union, who are here today, the National Sheep Association and the Dairy Council to the agrifood processors, the message is the same—this change must be reconsidered.

At rallies and meetings across my constituency and beyond, farmers have told me they feel under siege, squeezed by rising costs, regulatory pressures and now this looming tax threat. They want the Government to work with them, and not against them, which is why I have described this policy as a “farm tax heist”. That is how it feels to those who have given their lives to feeding our people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and hope that today we have been able to have that open and public discussion to share the different views on this policy. I would be happy to continue the discussion with her and others who think that the issue is important. Just last week, I made sure to speak to individual farmers to understand their perspectives on the policy. I will continue to engage with people who will be affected by the changes, and with Members in this place. I hope that we can continue those conversations across the aisle.

Let me make progress—I can see the time is slipping away from us. Overall, the reforms are expected to result in up to around 520 estates claiming UK agricultural property relief, including those also claiming BPR, paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Almost three quarters of such estates will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes, based on the data. As I have already mentioned, CenTax has looked at the Government’s figures and has reached a similar conclusion. Its work concludes that of the estates that are affected, half will see an increase in their effective inheritance tax rate of less than 5 percentage points, and 86% of those estates could pay their entire inheritance tax bill out of non-farm assets.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance in Westminster Hall. My question is about that 5 percentage point change. This year has been a terrible year for yields, especially in South Norfolk with the droughts. That hits the profitability of farming, which is non-existent—there is not enough profitability in farming. Will the Minister share what investigations the Treasury has done on that fluctuation in profitability and the ability of our farmers to pay the 5 percentage point increase he mentioned?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The figures that I raised were from research carried out by an independent organisation, CenTax. Profitability and incomes change from year to year, of course, and can change for different types of farms—we can see that beef prices, for example, are higher this year than they have been in the past, and the Government are aware of that.

Overall, we understand that the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views from Members from Northern Ireland and from all over the country, who are here to represent their constituents. I understand that, and I respect and admire the work of Members on both sides of the House in bringing their residents’ concerns to this place.

I know that the questions about inheritance and family businesses are deeply personal, and I do not pretend that such changes are not difficult, but I believe that the reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses and funding our public services. They mean that assets will be taxed at a lower rate than most others, and, in this tough context, I think that the Government have made the right decision. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann again, as well as all the Members who have intervened today.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the legacy issue of poor planning. NISTA, our new centre of expertise in the Treasury that is implementing the strategy, has been given the authority by Cabinet to co-ordinate spatial strategies across Government. That means that Departments will have to think between themselves about making sure that they put things like GP surgeries and hospitals in the right places when they are building significant numbers of new homes.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Our long-term plan is having an immediate effect in South Norfolk: over £200 million for the Thickthorn junction, £8.9 million for the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, and upgrades to four GP practices—[Interruption.] All of which will support the constituency of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) as well. I would not be doing a good job as the MP for South Norfolk if I did not flag the amazing work of the Norwich Research Park and advocate for future investment in it.

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so successful in securing so much investment in his constituency. I am sure his constituents will be deeply indebted to him now and in future elections. I know he will continue to make the case for investment for his constituents.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing the debate.

South Norfolk is no stranger to the creeping erosion of our local banking infrastructure. In January this year, Lloyds bank announced that it will close its branch in Wymondham, which is the last high street bank in the town. That leaves only a single branch of the Nationwide building society to serve a growing population of over 17,000. The day after the closure was announced, on 30 January, I secured an emergency meeting with Lloyds bank and made it clear that, without alternative provision, the closure would have serious consequences, especially for small businesses, and the data bears this out. Lloyds bank’s own data shows that Wymondham cashpoint use increased by 17% between 2019 and 2024. That is not a service in decline, but a service in demand. It is absolutely clear that a new banking hub must be up and running before the bank branch closes next March. I am pleased to report that this has now been arranged and that the site is currently being finalised. I will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that Wymondham is not left behind.

However, this issue is not limited to my largest town in South Norfolk. Loddon lost its Barclays bank in 2017, Long Stratton lost its Barclays bank in 2015, and if we are not careful, the story will be repeated across every rural constituency in the country. For rural communities such as mine, access to cash is not a matter of convenience; it is essential. Many of our villages still experience patchy mobile signal and poor internet connectivity, and when card machines go down or wi-fi drops out, it is cash that keeps the local economy going.

We must remember that rural Norfolk has one of the oldest populations in the country. Many residents prefer, or simply need, to manage their money in person. For them, travelling 20 or 30 miles to the nearest bank in Norwich is not going to work. That is why we need to be far more imaginative about how we can ensure that people have access to cash. One idea is to reimagine how we use our post offices and pubs. We all know that pubs are the hubs of our communities in village life, but too many are struggling to stay open. Letting them provide additional services, such as access to cash and postal services, would be a way to keep those hubs of rural village life going.

Community banking should not be something that we fight tooth and nail to preserve; it should be the backbone of a fair and functioning economy. Our rural towns and villages should not be told that their need is out of date or out of scope. I will keep fighting for that in Wymondham, Loddon, Long Stratton and all the villages of South Norfolk, and I know that many of my hon. Friends will be doing the same for their rural communities.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) to move the motion, I should inform Members that during today’s debate the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming for its series on procedural explainers.

Forty-nine colleagues have asked to speak in the debate, so if everyone is to get in, I have to impose from the beginning a three-minute limit on everybody taking part after the opener, apart from the winding-up speeches. Every time Members intervene, they will ensure that one of their colleagues will not get in at the end. If the hon. Member for South Norfolk, in his opening speech, takes too many interventions, or his speech goes on too long, he will prevent others from taking part. Let us all bear that in mind—short speeches of no more than three minutes, please.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. To date, the petition in question has received just shy of 150,000 signatures, which is a mark of the strength of feeling that exists about the proposed policy change. The petitioners argue that

“changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property.”

I put on the record my thanks to the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee who have secured for me, as a representative of the petitioners, meetings with the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tax Policy Associates, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rural Accountancy Group. As the Member of Parliament for the rural constituency of South Norfolk, which is formed of a patchwork quilt of farms, I am honoured to lead this debate and, in doing so, to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In 2012, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and I opposed the then Chancellor’s proposal to impose VAT on static caravans, as it was clearly wrong when we looked into it. Will the hon. Gentleman do the right thing, represent his rural constituents and recognise that this ruinous policy will not only destroy family farms across the country but put up food prices and worsen our national energy security? He should do the right thing, challenge his Chancellor and take some of his colleagues with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention after one minute and 26 seconds. I will try to get through my speech so that he can hear what I am about to say. As I was saying, I want to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses. It is their views, not mine, that I will focus on today.

Not many petitions submitted to the Petitions Committee can demonstrate not just a willingness to engage in online activism but real-world engagement with Parliament. Campaigns by the NFU, the CLA and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have been effective in drawing attention to petitioners’ concerns, as has the “Stop the family farm tax” campaign, which has placed banners across many constituencies, including mine. No matter what our opinions on the proposed policy changes, this issue has created public engagement with politics from the countryside that has not been seen in over 20 years. That is why this debate is both needed and important to demonstrate to farmers that, by peacefully engaging with Parliament, their voices can be heard. They have been effective in successfully shedding light on the daily challenges that face this fundamental sector. I thank them for that and encourage them to continue to advocate positively for rural Britain.

I want to touch on three key areas that I have discussed with the NFU, the CLA and others: first, the feeling of many farmers about the planned policy changes; secondly, the statistics that underpin the debate; and thirdly, proposals put forward by petitioners, stakeholders and experts that it is important for the Minister to hear and respond to based on the Government’s current thinking. I will aim to cover those topics on behalf of petitioners without being sensationalist. After all, a lot of emotion and politics has been attached to this debate so far, and understandably so. Nonetheless, that has arguably been done at times to obscure the rational arguments that many farmers, MPs and organisations have been making, some of which accept that agricultural property relief is likely to change but advocate for more graduated approaches.

Today is a day for calm, thoughtful debate on behalf of the petitioners, and I welcome all Members’ contributions in that spirit. I suggest that the endgame—a more acceptable policy for farmers—will not be achieved by bashing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury or the Minister, or by simply repeating the well-worn arguments we have heard over the past few months. Let this debate be a reflection of what this House does best, which is to consider a complex problem from all sides and seek to offer potential solutions to the Government.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

If we take it that the Government are trying to address the large tax avoiders—the Dysons and the billionaires who invest to avoid tax—and that they want to protect real farmers, it is perfectly possible for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to do so. Farmers are not on pay-as-you-earn; they all make submissions, every year, on the amount of time, work and effort they put in, and the money they make from farming. Would it not be possible to give an unlimited exemption to people who are real farmers, based on their HMRC submissions?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will cover that later in my speech.

Since being elected as the MP for South Norfolk, I have made a conscious choice to sit around as many farmhouse tables as humanly possible. It has been clear to me that South Norfolk needed politics to be done differently and, instead of being on broadcast mode, I have done all I can to listen, engage and try to deliver for all constituents in my little slice of Norfolk. I know that many of my colleagues on the Government Benches have done exactly the same.

Not all conversations have been smooth but, as I said to my recent meeting with the NFU’s Norwich and Loddon branch, I will never shirk away from my responsibility to be their voice in Parliament and to raise their views with Ministers. Today, I have had the opportunity to do that as a member of the Petitions Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to lay out the arguments I have heard over the past few weeks in preparation for this debate.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Listening is really important. I have heard from my local farmers that they are caught between thinking, “Is this a mistake?” and thinking, “Is this done on purpose?” Did the Government mistakenly not realise that they were going to bring all these family farmers into inheritance tax and agricultural change? Or, worse still, was it planned all along as a way to get the land for housing and some of the net zero targets? Either could be true. Does the hon. Gentleman have a preference over which one it is? Farmers want to know whether it was a mistake that should be rectified or it is an ideal policy driven by the Government.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am about to share the testimonies of my local farmers in South Norfolk. All too often as politicians we are keen to take the limelight for ourselves instead of listening to those on the ground who want us to put forward their opinions, which is what I am about to do.

One of my local farmers, Will, asked me to share his words:

“The government’s decision to make major changes to APR and BPR”—

business property relief—

“will spell the end for many family farms. Before this announcement, agriculture was already going through a difficult period and for many farmers, this news has left them without hope.”

Another farmer, Robert, wished for me to say:

“We are trapped with no way to mitigate against the effects of this cruel tax. Farming is who we are, it’s in our blood, it’s all we want to do.”

And another farmer, Tim, requested that I share this:

“I have spent my entire working life trying to build this farm up and have added about 200 acres in my time. I see myself as a custodian of the land which I know like the back of my hand and I feel responsible for it…to have to sell would be devastating and would go against all that I have worked for.”

Will, Robert and Tim all fear the significant consequences of the proposed APR changes on smaller family farmers, and I believe that their views are shared by many farmers who have historically operated under a 100% agricultural property relief system. There is no getting away from their genuine concerns and I know that, in his response, my hon. Friend the Minister will address those feelings in the sensitive manner required.

There can be no doubt that the arguments that land values are artificially high due to APR have credence. It is also undeniably true that we see non-farmers buying land for tax-efficiency reasons. Neither of those trends are positive but, to be clear, that does not mean that farmers are wrong when they raise concerns about paying a large one-off inheritance tax bill with anything other than the land they need to keep their heads above water, even if the bill is spread over 10 years.

The proposed policy change has arguably pointed to a fundamental issue for agriculture, which is the annual profitability of British farms. There is significant work for the Government to do to ensure that farms up and down the UK become more profitable during this Parliament, and I know the Minister is working hard on that.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the petition, which some Monmouthshire farmers have signed. Does he agree with the policy of our Labour Government to protect farmers through trade deals, unlike the Conservative party, which unfortunately signed trade deals that flooded our high streets and towns with foreign imports? That protection would really help the profitability of farms.

[Ben Goldsborough]

This debate has created a space in which we can talk about other issues that affect farms. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and I had an amazing debate on biosecurity in the UK, and there was cross-party consensus on many issues. There are also the issues with the sustainable farming initiative, payments through the basic payment schemes and the future of the environmental land management schemes. There is so much we need to do, including through trade deals. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

I have touched on some of our farmers’ concerns, but facts and figures are also important. I apologise in advance, but the next bit of my speech may be a bit dry. The most recent data shows that the top 7% of inheritance tax relief claims accounts for 40% of the total cost of agricultural property relief—that is a value of £219 million. The top 2%—just 37 claims—accounted for 22% of the total cost of the relief and was worth £119 million. This is factual data, and in this context the Government’s ambition for implementing this policy is sound: to end the system by which the very wealthiest in this country can avoid huge sums of inheritance tax by buying up land.

The petitioners argue that the proposed policy changes will not achieve that ambition because not just the wealthiest landowners will be impacted. The CLA estimates that capping agricultural property relief at £1 million could impact 70,000 UK farms. The NFU estimates that 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million cap, which of course can rise to £3 million under certain conditions. Petitioners and local farmers regularly remind me that not every farmer is married or lives in a farmhouse in their own name.

By contrast, the Treasury projects that around only 500 estates will be affected each year, based on historical claims. The IFS and the CLA both independently acknowledged in discussions with me that it is hard to project revenue or impact because behavioural changes are extremely hard to account for. It is clear, however, that the behavioural changes required by farmers will be enormous.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I will continue for a little while.

There is a deep uncertainty among farmers about what the changes will mean for them. Uncertainty is bad for business and it is bad for farmers’ mental health, so I encourage the Government to offer as much proactive engagement and clarity to farmers as possible, including in their response to this debate.

Another primary reason why farmers are so concerned is that they already face a challenge in keeping their businesses profitable. The CLA modelled a typical 350-acre arable farm. They told me that even if they spread the cost over 10 years, the farmer would be paying 100% of their annual profits for each of those 10 years to cover the proposed inheritance tax bill. That is a decade without profit. It should be acknowledged that all individuals across the UK are subject to rules that encourage gifting in advance of death. Farmers look likely to enter this world. It is true that farmers have held on to assets for longer than the average person because of APR, and the habit is unlikely to continue.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am sorry but I have taken a lot of interventions and want to move on to the next part of my speech.

I will now touch on solutions. The petition is clear that it seeks the scrapping of the policy. I will leave it for the Minister to respond with the official position; suffice it to say that all Members in this debate can agree that land banking for inheritance tax purposes is wrong, and that land values are prohibitively expensive for many farms to be able to expand and, even more so, for new farmers looking to enter the industry. Many farmers would like to see those things change over the coming years.

Farmers have told me that if the policy is not scrapped altogether, alternatives could be considered to give the sector more stability at the same time as helping the Government to achieve their ambition of a thriving rural economy. One such alternative is a shortened taper rate for older farmers. Under that proposal, a farmer aged 70, for example, would be given two to three years to hand over their property with a 33% or 50% taper rate after one year. Farmers in my constituency would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal, as it was raised with me at a recent meeting I had with the NFU eastern team. There are, of course, various ways of tweaking such approach by age or taper time but, according to farmers, movement on that front would give those who have worked the longest under the existing APR rules the ability to arrange their affairs more quickly.

[Steve Barclay]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am confused by his argument. He is talking about the crux of the issue: what is the scope of this tax? He voted in favour of it. He was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press as saying that it would not hit “proper farming families”. Is it his position that this tax does not hit proper farming families, or should the scope of the tax be changed? That is the crux of the issue, and with respect to the argument he has set out, I do not know what his position is, other than that he voted not to change the scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member has spoken for 15 minutes, so could he bring his remarks to a close to allow others to speak?

[Ben Goldsborough]

To reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I said at the start of my speech that the problem is that the issue has been turned into a political football, and that undermines our ability to speak in clear-minded ways about options and opportunities. It is really sad that across from me is a shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who has worked very hard on this issue, and with whom I have worked cross-party, but the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), does not want to work in a manner that could get the best outcome for our farmers.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. Could you give us guidance? I thought—perhaps wrongly, because of my inexperience—that somebody representing petitioners in the Chamber had to make the argument for them and believe in what they are asking for. We have had absolutely the opposite today; the petitioners have had no service in this debate up until now.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That is a matter for debate, but I am sure that plenty of Members present will give the argument for the petitioners, so I would not worry much about it.

[Ben Goldsborough]

There is one other option that it is important to consider before I finish. Mr Neidle, a tax specialist, recently said that the Government should consider a clawback system, potentially raising the threshold and looking at repayment.

My job today has been to represent the views of the 150,000 people who signed the petition and, by pulling together the various options that people would like to see, I believe I have done so. I thank friends from all political parties around the Chamber for engaging and showing interest in this issue. It is important that we all stand up for our communities, and I thank everyone for doing that. I thank the Minister for listening to my contribution and hope he takes it in the spirit of friendship with which it was meant. I hope I have set out the options on the table in respect of which those outside the Chamber would like to hear a response from the Government about what action will be taken.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

Time is short. The tradition is that I would normally thank every individual who has spoken, but there is not enough time for that. I thank everyone for the wide engagement across all political parties in Parliament, and I thank everyone for trying to take this debate forward in a better sense, with honesty, openness and transparency.

I also thank colleagues in the NFU. Today, I hosted an event in Parliament, and I know they have been sitting patiently not only at the back of the Chamber but outside, listening to the words that we say, because the words that we say in this Chamber carry a huge amount of weight. Going forward, these conversations will continue in the back rooms and in the corridors, to make sure that our farmers’ voices are heard and that we do not use events like this for grandstanding. As much as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) may regard my style as vanilla, I say to him in jest that vanilla is the favourite flavour of ice cream in the United Kingdom, so I will take that as a win.

Question put,

That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.

The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.

Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We are taking an approach that balances significant tax relief for family farms with the need to fix the public finances in as fair a way as possible. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the data that the Treasury has put out, based on claims data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It shows how few farms will in fact be affected. The measures are a fair and balanced way to fix the public finances, which we desperately needed to do given our inheritance from the Conservative Government.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is vital that we give value for taxpayers’ money, yet Conservative-run Norfolk county council’s doomed Norwich western link road is costing taxpayers £27,000 per day—that is nearly £50 million so far for not an inch of tarmac. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Norfolk Tories give us Liz Truss not just in Whitehall, but in county hall?

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, you’re running out of road.