Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

As I said earlier, the proposals made by CenTax and others in relation to agricultural property relief would result in twice as many farms paying more tax as are planned to do under the Government’s proposals. We think our proposals are right and fair.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Asylum accommodation costs are set to quadruple in Northern Ireland, from £100 million to £400 million, and across the UK to £15.3 billion in the next decade. Before hiking taxes again, should the Chancellor not look at where the waste really lies, when we are funding an asylum system that is failed, chaotic and expensive? This is not racist or far-right; it is looking after our own citizens who cannot pay their bills.

[James Murray]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should reduce the cost of asylum accommodation. Indeed, that is why our commitment to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament is so important.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farming in Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate on an issue that cuts right to the heart of rural Northern Ireland and indeed Britain.

The proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will have devastating consequences for family farms across our nation. Agriculture is not just another sector in our economy; for Northern Ireland it is our very foundation. It sustains our rural communities, feeds over 10 million people annually, underpins our agrifood industry and provides work for tens of thousands of families. I make no apology for repeating a comment that I have made previously, and that my grandfather tells me every Sunday at the dinner table: if the farmer is not doing well in this country, no one is.

In Northern Ireland we have over 26,000 farms. They form the backbone of our rural life—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for that point. She is absolutely right to underline the impact on family farms of the Chancellor’s proposals. In tandem with decisions being made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland, they will leave many farmers feeling that their generational family farms have no future. My hon. Friend will probably have seen “Countryfile” on Sunday. It highlighted two things for farmers: first, the mental health impact and that there have been suicides; secondly, the generational loss of the farms. If farms are not working, they are not viable, do not produce the food and the impact is great. The Government really need to sit down, take account of where we are and change the decision.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent voice on this issue. I will come to “Countryfile” later in my speech.

The vast majority of our farms in Northern Ireland are family run, often handed down proudly through several generations. The farm is not just a business: it is a home, a heritage and a legacy. That is why any policy that affects how farms are passed on to the next generation goes to the very core of who we are as rural people. For many families, the dream is simple: to see the next generation take over, work the same land and continue the proud tradition of stewardship. The reality of that dream is now under threat like never before.

Agricultural property relief has existed for a reason. It recognises that farming is asset-rich but cash-poor, or as we would say in Northern Ireland, “We are asset-rich but penny-poor.” A farm may be worth millions on paper, but that value is tied up in land, livestock, machinery, buildings and—most concerningly for many farmers—debt. Farmers spend money and they thrive in advancing. But for what—when they see what this Government are doing to them?

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

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although the Government say that the effect of the inheritance tax on farms will be pro-growth, it will actually be anti-growth? In order to prepare for the day when a huge tax bill will have to be met, rather than investing in growing their enterprise, farmers are holding back so that they can hopefully make some contribution towards the exorbitant demands that are made upon death.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is right; the policy is stifling growth. As I have said before, farmers want to advance and grow, and they want to spend money.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. To follow up on the previous intervention, I wonder whether she has noticed in Northern Ireland, as I have in Cumbria, that farmers are holding money back. If they need a drystone wall fixing, they are not paying for that. If they need a new tractor, they are not investing in it. If they need to upgrade a barn for animal welfare purposes, they are not doing it. The policy is damaging not only farms but the rural communities that service those farms, and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, constricting growth.

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member. I need to give way to the leader of my party at this point.

[Gavin Robinson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is quite right that she took the last two interventions because she was talking about cross-party support for Northern Ireland farms. She is blessed to have a constituency with some of the most fertile and therefore valuable agricultural land in Northern Ireland, with an average of around £30,000 per acre. Although there may be a policy intention in relation to the industrialisation of farms or people shielding their wealth through farms, would she like the Government to recognise that that is not the case in Northern Ireland, and even a small family holding of 30 acres could get caught by the policy change?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. It does not take much arithmetic to work out the facts of that scenario.

In a recent joint letter to the Chancellor, signed by all MPs and peers from Northern Ireland, we set out a clear position:

“Agriculture is not simply an economic sector; it is a way of life. The removal or restriction of Agricultural Property Relief will place an unfair and unsustainable burden on family farms, jeopardising their ability to pass on their farms to the next generation and threatening the future of family farming.”

Those are not my words alone. They are the voices of rural Northern Ireland, speaking in unison in the House today.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate that focuses specifically on Northern Ireland. Does she agree that what the Treasury and the Government have missed in the proposal is the unique nature of farms in Northern Ireland, where 99% are actually family owned? Even that promise of the opportunity to spread the tax bill over 10 years restricts families who want to invest in their farms, and puts pressure on not only the older generation who are concerned about the farm they are leaving, but the younger generation who are looking to the future.

[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.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to understand that Northern Ireland represents around 3% of the population of the UK, but produces a multiple of that in terms of food produce for the rest of the United Kingdom? If that was recognised, there might be more recognition in terms of what she is trying to achieve through this debate.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pause, and engage in genuine consultation with the farming community. Sit with us and talk to us. They have refused every meeting request.

We need a review that recognises the unique structures of Northern Ireland farming, made up of predominantly family-run farms and regional variations. Many suggestions have been made that are worth exploration, including in the latest Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report, as has been noted. I am not saying that it is a silver bullet, but we should sit down, talk about it and start to engage in the conversation.

At its heart, this debate is about how we as a society value those who feed us. We speak often in this House about sustainability and food strategy, but sustainability begins with sustaining the people who produce our food. We cannot say we care about the environment and rural life on one hand and on the other make policies that threaten to strip families of the land they have cared for over generations. I say to the Exchequer Secretary, with the full force of rural Northern Ireland behind me: think again. Listen to the voices of those who know the land and who understand the realities of farming life. Do not create a policy that will devastate small family farms in pursuit of a marginal tax return. Agriculture is a national asset, not a target for revenue generation.

The changes to agriculture property relief are not reform. They are an attack on our family farming. They form part of a wider Labour agenda that is anti-rural, anti-farmer and anti-common sense. That is how it is seen out in rural Britain, and it is somewhat similar to the direction of travel of our own Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland. While our producers face rising costs and red tape, Labour’s response is more tax and more barriers. Their net zero plans are driving good farmland out of production and into solar panels and their planning rules are choking rural life and pushing young families off the land.

On national TV this week, the reality was laid bare. I can still see Charles Rees in my mind as he said

“if something doesn’t change by next April I’d probably top myself.”

If that does not send a shiver down every spine in this place today, we are not in touch with the public. I ask Labour to stop, halt, talk to us, engage, get it right. Do not go on this collision course. I urge the Government to scrap this farm tax and rethink.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

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

[Carla Lockhart]

The Minister is certainly sticking to the script, but can he give us even an opening through the door of the Treasury? Will he open that door and speak with the farming unions across the nation?

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

That was the point I was making when I asked the Minister whether there is an established methodology to make sure that the valuation of companies reflects the current situation.

This change does not target the ultra-wealthy or global conglomerates. In many parts of the UK even modest enterprises, especially those with land and equipment, which are often the biggest local employers, exceed the £1 million relief cap. Unlike large corporations, family businesses cannot just offshore ownership structures or use complex tax arbitrage to avoid the costs.

I am sure that every Member present, including the Minister, agrees that preserving the businesses at the heart of our communities should be the Government’s priority, not erecting barriers that create an environment too toxic for family businesses to survive. Will the Minister consider raising the relief cap to £2 million, as requested by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network? That would make more family businesses exempt from this dangerous inheritance tax, thereby protecting jobs and local businesses.

The reality is that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment, and according to estimates by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will raise only around £1.8 billion over a four-year period. That amount comes with a high uncertainty rating, because behaviour change might alter it significantly, and it cannot be compared with the £27 billion of VAT, late PAYE and national insurance that HMRC is yet to collect.

Forcing family businesses to reduce investment, withdraw capital, dispose of assets or sell or shut their business entirely to release cash to fund inheritance tax liability will weaken the competitiveness of not only the businesses themselves, but the wider UK economy. The changes may be well-intentioned, but they are misdirected in their execution. They risk treating genuine business owners in the same way as passive investors, and in doing so they ignore the fact that these reliefs were originally designed to protect the continuity of real working businesses in real communities.

In conclusion, will the Minister consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses—

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. Before she closes, it is important for us just to home in on the figures. A Family Business UK report shows that in my constituency the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will result in a £23.63 million reduction in gross value added and the loss of 381 full-time equivalent jobs, as well as being the end of many family farms. Multiplying those figures out across the United Kingdom means the loss of 208,000 jobs, a £14.8 billion reduction in GVA and a net fiscal loss to the Government of £1.9 billion. Does she agree that the death tax is immoral and should be scrapped?

[Susan Murray]

I certainly agree that we need to protect our family-owned businesses and do everything we can to help them to thrive, rather than putting them in a position whereby the economy is at risk of losing both jobs and growth.

I will finish the question that I was putting to the Minister. Will he consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses, and make the transfer of shares in a family business to the next generation exempt from inheritance tax for seven years, provided that the business is not sold in that period? If it is sold within that period, inheritance tax would become payable, along with the capital gains tax, both of which could be funded from the proceeds of the sale.

This Government have stated that growing the UK economy is essential, but attacking the backbone of the economy—the family businesses that have proved they can adapt and change rapidly to meet changing market needs and conditions, and that support supply chains and local jobs—must not happen. Family businesses should be supported, not raided for a relatively de minimis gain to the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced reforms to speed up clinical trials to ensure that the best new drugs can come to this country, benefiting from our NHS. On the issue of mental health treatment, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of addressing that, both for the health and wellbeing of individuals and because of the economic benefit that he speaks to. I am happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

On 30 October, the Chancellor upended our economy through tax rises and punitive death taxes. She has delivered a devastating blow to family farms and small family businesses—the very backbone of our economy. When will the Chancellor recognise that she is elected by the people, for the people? Every day that she avoids engaging with the farming community is another day of wilful neglect. Our farmers are being driven out, not by market forces but by a Government blind to their struggles and deaf to their voices. When will she listen and speak with them?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Lady and I have discussed in several debates in recent months, the decision we took on agricultural property relief and business property relief was difficult, but it was the right and balanced one to ensure we protect family farms and small businesses while fixing the public finances in a fair way. Fixing the public finances is in the interest of every Member of this House and all the constituents we represent, because it underpins the investment we are putting into the future of this country and into getting the economy growing.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

No, I will make some progress. The Government want to shift healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Southern Area hospice, which is located just outside my constituency, has to raise £3.6 million per year, or £300,000 per month. It is not Government funded, as has been mentioned, so what reassurance can the Minister give to those currently using Southern Area hospice for end of life care that the Government will do the right thing and support our hospices by not including them in the increase to national insurance contributions?

[James Murray]

I have explained how the Government are approaching employer national insurance contributions and the support that they offer for central Government, local government and public corporations. That is an established way of responding to changes to employer national insurance contributions, which the previous Government did—

Family Businesses

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The data that I refer to is based on claims data. This is an important point that comes up frequently when we have debates on agricultural property relief and business property relief. If one were to consider assets owned by farmers or other business owners, the actual value of the asset does not give a guide to what claim might be made against inheritance tax because that will depend on the ownership structure, on debt that might be owned or on what inheritances have happened earlier in people’s lives and so on. The only data that can give an indication of what impact the changes will have from April 2026 is the claims data.

The data that I referred to earlier and which I referred to in response to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is the real claims data that HMRC has. That is the data on which we made decisions around this policy and which informs some of the Chancellor’s statistics in her response to the Treasury Committee, which the hon. Lady may like to consult.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the Agriculture Department has indicated that almost half of all farms, and 75% of all dairy farms, will be impacted by the inheritance tax. When will the Minister start to speak with, and listen to, industry leaders? Quite frankly, the meeting last week was an outrage. He needs to sit and listen to industry leaders, who know the industry and are speaking on behalf of real farmers on the ground who will be impacted by this inheritance tax.

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady referred to meetings that I held last week, both with representatives of UK-wide organisations and those that represent other nations within the UK. There is a difference between listening to people and having to agree, because sometimes we listen and we disagree. That is the situation we found ourselves in after that meeting—we listened to concerns but we have a different approach. I have been setting out in this debate exactly why we have taken this decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats about family businesses, because they are so important and make a distinct contribution to our economy and to their local communities. Family businesses are synonymous with quality, trust and reliability. Family businesses have a strong sense of stewardship of their craft, their capital and their customer base. By their very nature, family businesses have the goal of nurturing their business to pass through to the next generation and, as a result, have a vested interest in long-term decisions, the stability of the economy and building a resilient community.

Where family businesses are located on high streets, they are often the anchor stores, bringing back loyal customers time and again. Family businesses are present in every part of the UK. Indeed, they are often the largest employer in a region and the largest philanthropic organisation in those communities, too. But in tabling the motion, the official Opposition do not seek to acknowledge or accept the damage that they have done to family businesses over the years. [Interruption.] If the official Opposition are patient, they will realise that I will not pull my punches when addressing the Government, but it is an Opposition day debate, so let me continue to outline the litany of mistakes that have occurred over the years.

The Conservatives scrapped the industrial strategy, which was the bedrock of long-term planning. They failed to reform the broken business rates system, which has hammered family businesses on the high street. They starved family businesses of seasonal workforces, which many of them need. Their botched Brexit deal has deprived many family businesses of access to European markets, raising trade barriers for imports and exports, and wrapped them up in reams of red tape. They wreaked havoc with their mini-Budget, making access to finance too expensive for many, and they failed to address the soaring energy costs and broken energy market that has resulted in many small family businesses suffering from extortionate energy contracts and being frozen out of the best deals.

That is why it is disappointing to see that the Labour Government are making some of the same mistakes. The national insurance contributions rise is unnecessary. The Government could have raised that £10 billion through other, fairer means such as taxes on big corporations that have raised billions, using that money to put public services back on their feet.

The business rates proposals will be incredibly damaging for small businesses on our high streets. On a number of occasions in the House, I have invited Ministers to look at House of Commons Library research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats that shows that chains will continue to be subsidised by small independents. Of course, there are also the changes to APR and BPR, which will raise a relatively small amount of money for the Treasury but could be devastating to many small family businesses across the UK.

Family Business UK, which I met this morning, is urging the Government to run an impact assessment. It is conducting its own impact assessment in partnership with the National Farmers Union, where it intends to speak to more than 3,000 family businesses about the potential impact of these measures. May I invite the Minister either to intervene on me now or to say in responding to the debate whether the Government will meet Family Business UK to discuss the findings of its survey once it is complete?

We should not just think of family businesses as units for tax revenue. Family businesses are different. Family farms rightly grab the public’s imagination, but there is more than that. In my constituency of St Albans, I can think of many. Hedges Farm Shop is a much loved, family run, award winning farm shop, and its delicious meat is often on the menu of our award winning restaurants. Waterers tailors is run by two generations of the Masi family, providing bespoke, high quality tailoring and some especially fancy men’s jackets. Burston Garden Centre is a long-established family business with a lovely restaurant and is a fantastic place for a day out. We have beauty companies, building merchants and electric vehicle charger stores, all of which are family businesses. And one of my favourite pubs, too: The Boot, handed down from Will to his son Sean.

On the subject of pubs, what on earth is this absurd idea in the Opposition day motion that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will somehow put the British pint at threat? The pint is well and truly safe. [Interruption.] The pint is well and truly safe, something I am sure the entire House wants to hear. The pint is enshrined in law in the Weights and Measures Act 1985, so this scaremongering is just total nonsense. I am tempted to call it a load of old Codswallop, but I would not want to insult the makers of that very fine pale ale. I could instead accuse the Conservatives of scraping the barrel. Let us just say that the Conservatives’ claim that the pint will be abolished is as fanciful as Labour’s claim that punters will see a penny taken off the price of their pint. They won’t. Frankly, if the Opposition think they are standing up for pubs they need to think again. I say this not only as the MP for St Albans, where we have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, but also, I am proud to say, as the MP crowned last year as pub parliamentarian of the year. [Interruption.] I was, yes.

The last Conservative Government proved, unfortunately, that they did not know their firkin from their pin. They could not tell a kilderkin from a craft keg. Their defective attempt to introduce a draught beer relief ended up excluding the very small craft brewers they were claiming to help. When a former Conservative Prime Minister had the audacity to have a photo op with the casks that he had mistakenly left out of the draft duty relief support scheme, it was the Liberal Democrats who worked with publicans and small brewers to force that correction.

If the official Opposition want to pretend to stand up for the great British pub, they will need to do their homework. They should get out and speak to the struggling pubs and hospitality businesses that they have ignored. If the Conservatives want to continue with their pint-sized politics, it will be the Liberal Democrats who will continue to have the official Opposition well and truly over a barrel. Jokes aside, there are changes in the Labour Budget that are no laughing matter: the national insurance contribution changes and the reduction in business rates relief will deliver a hammer blow to our pubs. They will have no choice but to put up prices for punters and many more may be pushed to the brink.

[Carla Lockhart]

A joint survey by leading hospitality trade associations in Northern Ireland has revealed that 65% of hospitality businesses will reduce their employment levels, 55% will cancel planned investment, and 22% believe they will have to close their doors. The same can be said of retail because of the extra threat around big business and online sales and the fact that they get away in the smoke around taxation. Does the hon. Lady agree that there will be tumbleweed on our high streets, rather than the thriving high streets that the Minister suggested today?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising those points. Our high streets are the beating hearts of our communities all over the UK. There is real concern that when the national insurance contribution changes and the reduction in the business rates relief kick in, our high streets will be absolutely hammered and we may indeed see tumbleweed. That matters for two reasons: there will be an impact on our local economies and that could have a knock-on impact on people’s confidence. Many people with busy lives do not always get to follow headlines about growth, inflation, interest rates and all the rest, but they do look to their high streets as the primary signal of whether or not the economy is working for them and whether it is working in their local area.

In hospitality, of course, it is not just the increase in the national insurance contribution rates that will have an impact. The changes will also mean that many part-time workers will not be recruited to work in those businesses. That will impact in particular women, people from ethnic minorities and young people. Young people often work in hospitality as their first job. Often hospitality can give them the chance to work after something adverse has happened in their life. I think all of us in this House can say that we support hospitality, and it is vital that we continue to support it.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I will answer this point before giving way. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart): the electorate were sold false promises in the run-up to the general election. They were specifically told that this Labour Government would not change agricultural property relief, but that is exactly what the Government have done.

How will the Minister communicate with George? What will he tell George, based on the promises that were given in the run-up to the general election? I cannot believe how many times I have asked this, but will the Government commit to recording suicide statistics across the farming sector as we move closer to April 2026? If the Minister is so determined to carry on with his family farming death tax, will he at least look at changing the abruptness of the tax’s implementation, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our farming community? It cannot be right that this Government are forcing people to make those decisions.

Another point that has been made is that the tax also hits our next generation, the very young people we need to power our industry forward. What does the Minister say to Gemma, the granddaughter of a lifelong farmer who has been forced to split up the family’s farm, leaving their future in doubt? What does the Minister say to the thousands of young farmers up and down the country, many of whom are outside this building right now, who are in a similar situation because of this Government’s choices? I spoke to a few of them outside, before coming into this House. The same concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

Then there are the tenant farmers. About a third of agricultural land is farmed by tenants. I spoke recently to Tom, a tenant farmer who stands to lose not only his livelihood but his family home, as his landlords scramble to reduce their IHT liability before April 2026. The Tenant Farmers Association is already warning of the mass renegotiation of many agricultural tenancies ahead of the family farm tax kicking in. For the tenant farmers there is no protection, because the Government did not see fit to recognise their unique situation. Will the Minister recognise the injustice to which tenants like Tom are being exposed through this Government’s choices? Will he provide protections for those with tenancies and for the whole agricultural sector?

Many points have been made by Opposition Members, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who talked about the wider implications on our food sector. Just last week, I was at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, where I met a tractor dealer who is also in a family business and struggling to stay afloat. Why? Because confidence is draining from the farming sector, and orders for new tractors, machinery and equipment have reduced significantly.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his sterling work. He will know that early mornings, late nights, no holidays and low profit margins make up a typical day in the life of British farmers. They do it because they love the land, and they do it to feed our nation and sustain our rural communities. Does the hon. Member agree that this tax grab is a wrecking ball that will decimate our family farms? If Labour proceeds with it, it will have the death of rural Britain and rural Ulster on its hands. We need to stand up, stop this tax grab and ensure that the farmers outside this building today are heard in this place.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

One of the reasons for such poor investment—the lowest of all the G7 economies—is that our planning system makes it so hard to get anything done in this country. That is why the planning and infrastructure Bill, which is being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, will turn that around, making it easier to invest in transport, in digital, in housing and in so much more. That is the way to get our economy growing after 14 years of failure.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She goes to China, New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build economic relationships, yet she will not take the time to speak with the Ulster Farmers Union, the NFU, the Farmers Union of Wales or NFU Scotland to hear at first hand about the devastating impact that her death tax will have on family farms and small businesses. When will she realise that no matter what deals she does around the world—and I welcome them—Rome is burning around her? Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, so will she commit to meet me as a representative of the thousands of farmers whose farms are going to be decimated by her death tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), would be happy to meet colleagues from Northern Ireland. The truth is that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances from the Conservatives, and in order to stabilise our public finances we had to make difficult decisions on taxes. At the moment we hear from the Opposition that they do not like the increases in taxes but they want increases in public spending. Well, they cannot have it both ways.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I refer him to Hansard from the previous Parliament. The comments I have just made are entirely consistent with the comments I made in the last parliamentary term.

With each day that passes, we learn more about the damage Labour’s Budget will inflict on household bills, businesses and charities, yet despite those warnings the Labour Government are determined not to listen and are ploughing ahead with this devastating proposal. The SNP will always stand up and protect Scottish jobs, Scottish services and Scotland’s people. That is reflected in John Swinney’s budget—a balanced budget in the interests of the people of Scotland and the businesses of Scotland. That is the SNP way. We have done it this year and we have done it in every one of the 17 previous years we have been in the Scottish Government.

Do the UK Government understand how commissioned services work? We have heard that quite a lot this afternoon and it is becoming increasingly clear that, at best, they have a sketchy understanding of why vital services are provided by non-statutory service providers. What is going to happen when this measure unwinds into the real economy is that charities, GP surgeries, hospices and other vital elements of healthcare provision will not have reserves. They are already operating at the very margins of financial sustainability, so when the sums do not add up, they will have two choices. They will approach the commissioning authority that has commissioned their services to ask for an uplift in their fees. The answer will be no, because the money is not there. Alternatively, they will withdraw their services or draw down their services. Either way, it will be enormously challenging and extremely damaging for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. The Labour party has said in the main that it is the right choice to increase NICs. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland’s health and social care will be hardest hit. The Northern Ireland children’s hospice estimates that half a million pounds will be needed to cope with the NICs increase. This is a hospice that provides care for the most vulnerable in our society: children with cancer and children with life-limiting conditions. Does he agree that the measure will see the end of these excellent services, which are much needed in our communities?

[Dave Doogan]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. There is no road back from that. The difficulty that I implore the Government to pay attention to is that when the damage that will be inflicted by this measure is inflicted by this measure, they cannot just say, “Oops, we got that wrong. If you wouldn’t mind all coming back and start delivering these commissioned services, we’ll admit we got it wrong.” When it’s gone, it’s gone. It is not acceptable that the Government are playing fast and loose with the safety net that exists in our communities and our society to catch the most vulnerable people and prevent absolute chaos. That is exactly what the Government are doing.

However, the Government should not take the hon. Lady’s word for it, or mine. We can listen to people who are at the coalface. This is primary evidence from the Scottish Huntington’s Association:

“The entire charity sector is increasingly burdened by climbing costs, funding issues, recruitment and retention challenges and an increased demand for services.

All too many have had to close their doors, with more expected to follow. Additional burdens being imposed by government at this juncture”,

the association says, are deeply unhelpful.

“Coming just weeks after the prime minister announced a ‘new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential’ this must surely be an unfortunate oversight, and one that simply cannot be allowed to stand given the scale of its implications for the not-for-profit sector and the many thousands of people who depend upon it in the absence of alternative statutory services.”

It is not just the association that takes that view. Turning Point Scotland has advised that this measure alone will add £1.1 million to its costs overnight, and it comes at a time of a pressured environment, when many of its services are already running at a deficit. That is true of the voluntary sector, but also of the nursery and college sectors.

On healthcare, I wonder whether the Government understand the concept of whole-system costs. As I and many Members have said, when charities fold, as many of them will, the services that they were providing will no longer be there. Who will then provide that care? It will be the provider of last resort, secondary care. People will present themselves at hospitals, where there will be no room. It will be chaotic, but in a purely Treasury and fiscal sense, it will be an extremely expensive form of chaos, for which the Government, through the whole-system paradigm, will need to pick up the costs. I am not certain that the Minister has been properly briefed by his Treasury officials on what the risk assessment actually says about the human and financial costs of the change when this heads south. This is what happens when the Chancellor treats the real economy as her own personal political piggy-bank. It will not be possible to fix this once it has been broken.

I have some sympathy for the Minister in one respect. We have heard, and I will not repeat, the headline figure—the gross quantum that the Government expect to generate by lowering the threshold and increasing the rates of employer national insurance. By the time everyone who is in a position to adjust their business and employment characteristics to accommodate it has done so, by the time the Government have compensated elements of the public sector and by the time the economy has contracted to accommodate that, we are already down from £25-something billion to £10 billion-odd. That is a lot of pain to accept to gain £10 billion.

If the Government were to exclude or make provision for hospices, nurseries, the voluntary sector more generally and universities, that £10 billion would be reduced to an embarrassingly small figure, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I nevertheless encourage them to have the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the people of these islands first, rather than the political expediency of careering headlong towards a cliff edge that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face and jumping over it anyway in order to save face—because the Government will not save face. There is no escape from the corner they have painted themselves into. They can either U-turn and incur the political costs, which I would recommend, given that they have just come through the door—they should be at the height of their political powers, but if this is the height of their political powers, goodness me!—or they can carry on regardless, and pick up the pieces of all the chaos that will be wreaked across the sector.

This incompetence, for it is incompetence, did not start when the Government walked through the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It started back in the election campaign, when they proscribed the use of the single biggest lever in the Treasury’s toolkit to get additional funding. They said that they would not increase income tax on ordinary working people, although with these measures they will take away financial opportunities and, actually, people’s money through payroll changes anyway. It is smoke and mirrors. However, by painting themselves into that corner on income tax, they have created a situation in which they have to make the most damaging tax intervention possible, which is entirely contrary to their stated ambition of generating growth.

Quite a lot of Labour Members have said, “It’s all very well listening to the Opposition, but what would you do?” I will give them two really easy things that the Government could have done. If they had mirrored the income tax thresholds that the Scottish Government have introduced, they would have generated £19 billion. That would not have had a single impediment on the real economy, would not have choked off growth and would not have put primary care on the precipice. They could have done that. Or, if they had thought that they could get by on less than £19 billion—they will have to, because they will raise less than £10 billion from this measure—they could have just reversed the previous Government’s two cuts to employee’s national insurance. Judging by the arithmetic in this place, the Conservatives did not exactly get a brilliant political return on cutting employee’s national insurance twice in two quarters of one financial year. The Government could have reversed those cuts, which would have netted £10 billion—roughly where they are now, on aggregate—but no, they did not want to do that and they refuse to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The mentality is that with these national insurance increases we are imposing more taxes on small businesses and on all the sectors I have spoken about. I would ask the hon. Gentleman what spending decreases could have been looked at—have any productivity impositions been put on the public sector, for example? That should be the answer, rather than asking, “Who should we tax to pay for the black hole?” Instead, we should be asking how we can reduce and reprioritise the things that we do; looking at some of the things the Government do at present that they do not need to do, or that they could do better, or that they could save money on.

I listened with bemusement to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who was relieved by a survey in The Guardian in which more than 50% of those surveyed were quite happy with this tax. If there are so many Guardian readers happy to pay more taxes, I am sure the Scottish National party would love them all to move to Scotland, because it might solve some of the problems they have. These are the kinds of strained arguments that we have had from Government Members.

They know the impacts the Bill will have. I am sure they are having the same conversations with their constituents as I have had with the people who have spoken to me in my constituency office—the small businesses, those in the hospitality industry, the GPs and those in the care sector and the charitable sector, who have come to me and told me the impact it will have on their organisation. I do not believe we can run away from this, despite what will happen when we vote later today.

I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) that somehow little cabals will form on the Government Benches—that they will all start whispering, and maybe 10 of them will go to see the Chief Whip, and then next week it will be 20, and then, by the time there are 50 of them going to see the Chief Whip, this will all change. I do not share that optimism. What I do hope, however, is that the predictions that have been made about the Bill will finally resonate with the Chancellor, and we will see a change in policy.

[Carla Lockhart]

In my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend, agrifood manufacturing is a big business base and a big sector. As he will know, many agrifood businesses are saying that these changes will increase their bill by £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000. On top of the death tax for family farms, that will absolutely decimate our agrifood sector. I urge the Government to pull back from this measure; otherwise, we will see the cornerstone of our economy destroyed.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, agrifood is another sector that I had not mentioned, along with hospitality, food processing, all the charitable sectors and some that are supporting the health industry—all are affected by it; they cannot escape it. I believe the impact will be far worse than what the Government are hoping for. Of course, as a result of the side effects of this measure, the revenue that is hoped for might not even be obtained.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis]

I will come on to opportunities to increase the prosperity of farmers, which should be our mission.

The second opportunity for farmers is around procurement and trade, and using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce, so that 50% of food brought into hospitals, Army bases and prisons is locally produced. We can protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals, and we are seeking a new veterinary agreement with the EU to get our exports moving.

I want to touch on devolution and its ability to empower local understanding. Anyone who lives in a rural community knows that part of its strength is a deep generational knowledge of the land and local area. Nowhere is that more evident than in generational farming. Indeed, it is that knowledge, passed down through generations and trained into children from the time they can walk, that ensures some of the efficiencies that keep our farms going. I am a huge advocate for devolution, especially for areas such as Lancashire, where Ribble Valley is located, that include vast rural areas, because it brings democracy and understanding closer to communities. That is a huge issue that the Government are progressing at pace in order to do right by rural communities.

I am grateful to all the farmers who have been having open conversations with me about how past and future policy has and could affect them. Any new Government will take some time to unpick how relationships have worked in the past, and how they might want to change them. I came to Westminster as someone who is passionate about local leadership and devolution, and there is much that this Government can do to help farmers by taking decisions.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is making an eloquent speech about farming and the importance of farmers to our communities; they undertake roles such as gritting the roads and cutting our hedges, as well as feeding the nation we live in. She talks about devolution. Does she agree that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland has said that one third of farmers will be impacted by the agricultural property tax, with 75% of our dairy farmers being the hardest hit? The policy is not working. Stop the family farm tax grab.

[Maya Ellis]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will come to how we can help the farmers who will be affected by the measures.

To finish my point about devolution, as an MP in an area with huge extents of rural economy, it is critical to me that devolution reflects our rural areas as much as our metropolitan ones. I look forward to seeing how the upcoming devolution White Paper addresses that challenge. Town and parish councils really understand our rural communities and can play a bigger role in local democracy.