Clause 1

Debate between Lizzi Collinge and Carla Lockhart

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

Much clarity is needed, and I trust we will get that clarity in today’s debate. A farm worth £5 million owned by a single farmer could face a tax bill of around £500,000, while a farm of the same value owned jointly would face no tax bill at all. That is not fair; it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Farmers are asset rich but cash poor. Many family farms exceed £2.5 million in value, and not because they are wealthy enterprises, but because land values have risen dramatically while margins remain tight and incomes volatile. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has outlined, an estimated 25% of farms in Northern Ireland fall above that threshold. Those farms are the backbone of our economy. The move from 100% relief to 50% relief above the cap is not a minor adjustment; it is a fundamental weakening of agricultural property relief. It risks forcing families to sell land, reduce the scale of their business or take on unsustainable debt—not because their farms have failed, but because their tax system has failed them.

I will quickly address new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish a Northern Ireland-specific impact assessment. That should not need an amendment; it should be done as a matter of course. But this sudden interest in farming by the Alliance party is not lost on the folks at home. Not only are farmers at home battling the Labour Government’s anti-farming policies, but they have an Alliance Farming Minister who is tone deaf to the needs of farmers—a Minister who supports climate change extremism, who is further regulating the industry, and who is blaming farmers for the algae bloom on Lough Neagh while ignoring the 200 million tonnes of waste from Northern Ireland Water. Farmers in Northern Ireland are getting it from all quarters, and I, for one, make no apology for standing up tonight against this tax grab, but also against the policies in Northern Ireland that are damaging our farms.

A clear principle is at stake. People are taxed throughout their lives on their income, on their profits and on what they produce. To then tax those same assets again, simply because someone has died, is a double whammy. It is double taxation in all but name, and it penalises families at the very moment of loss. That is a principle I cannot support. It is immoral. A death tax is immoral. This policy will drive despair—not prosperity—into farming communities if it is allowed to stand. The Government still have the opportunity to do the right thing. Politics is about doing the right thing, and the Minister knows that the right and honourable thing to do is to consign this policy to the farmyard manure heap. If the Government choose not to, they must accept the lasting damage that this policy will inflict on family farms, rural communities and our national security. The outcomes are on this Government’s shoulders.

[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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lizzi Collinge and Carla Lockhart

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On a constitutional basis alone, amendment (a) to amendment 77 is necessary, and I hope that hon. Members will feel they can support it.

Moving on to factors beyond the constitution, I am concerned that there is a dangerous absence of an adequate regulatory framework for lethal drugs under the Bill. At present, clause 25 gives the Secretary of State powers to approve lethal drugs, while clause 34 mandates the Secretary of State to make provision for prescribing, dispensing, transportation, storage, handling, disposal and record keeping, as well as enforcement and civil penalties. However, the fundamental issue of how these approved substances are actually approved remains alarmingly weak. The Bill defines “approved substances” simply as

“a drug or other substance specified”

by the Secretary of State in regulations. There is no explicit requirement for those substances to undergo specific, rigorous testing for their use in assisted dying.

When this issue was debated in Committee, I was disappointed to see good-faith amendments to engage, such as amendment 443, being dismissed.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

Amendment 443 sought to mandate that those substances be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. I therefore strongly support amendment 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which

“ensures that drugs can only be approved if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that the drug is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.”

That is a common-sense approach that should attract support from across the House.

This week, more than 1,000 doctors wrote a powerful letter to all MPs to outline their deep concerns about this Bill, calling it a

“real threat to both patients and the medical workforce”.

I strongly urge this House and colleagues to read that letter before Third Reading. The Government’s own impact assessment does not provide any comfort with regard to the use of lethal drugs under the terms of the Bill, which the doctors’ letter picks up on, saying that

“there is no requirement for…[the drugs]…to undergo rigorous testing and approval that would be required of any other prescribed medication, nor indeed for them to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”.

They go on to say that that is

“contrary to all good medical practice”.

This matters not just for regulation, but with regard to patient safety and complications. There is no requirement in the Bill to inform patients about how risks—including a prolonged death, rather than the promised peaceful and dignified death—will be managed. Complications do occur, and this is not scaremongering. In Oregon, when complications have been recorded, patients have experienced difficulty swallowing, drug regurgitation and seizures, and they have even regained consciousness. In Canada, a Canadian association has noted that patients have experienced regurgitation, burning and vomiting.

I draw Members’ attention to the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by a group of expert senior pharmacists and pharmacologists. In their submission, they warn that the approach of the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Specifically, they caution against proceeding without

“a comprehensive review of the evidence for efficacy and safety”,

and note that that review

“should be scrutinised by MPs before…consideration of legalising assisted suicide”.

These are not small details or incidental matters, yet, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage through the Commons, we are still being asked to pass legislation without satisfactory answers to basic questions from experts in the field. That is simply not good enough.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak, and I will close by saying simply that whatever mitigating amendments may be passed, this Bill remains morally and ethically wrong. It is flawed and should not be passed.