Alistair Carmichael MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I feel I should declare an interest, Mr Speaker, in that Mrs Carmichael will be one of those veterinary surgeons who will be on call on Christmas Day this year. It will be me in the kitchen, yet again. [ Interruption. ] That’s fine; it keeps the turkeys safe, at least. Just 10 days ago, Baroness Hayman told us that we would get the strategy before Christmas. Publishing it next week is, I suppose, strictly within the letter of that, but it is not quite within the spirit. The Department seems to be struggling a bit with its strategies at the moment. Our Select Committee had an excellent session with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), but as soon as she was out the door, no fewer than four fisheries management strategies landed in my inbox. As a new year’s resolution, will the Secretary of State look at how these things are handled, so that this House can scrutinise future strategies?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Farming Profitability · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, one of the biggest challenges to farming profitability is the market fact that farmers are price takers. The farming campaigner Olly Harrison was this week highlighting that Lidl and Aldi are selling carrots at 8p per kilo, well below the cost of production. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that when supermarkets sell under the cost of production, that cost is borne by the supermarkets, not the farmers?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for giving way. On the point of growth, he should be aware that, since the Budget last year, 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have already downsized operations, and 21% intend to do so before next April. What are the Government going to do to restore confidence in farming to invest? Without that, there is no growth in the rural community.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may be a little over-generous in saying that there are unintended consequences. The anti-forestalling clause, which is intended to deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way, puts a massive burden on those who are over 75.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded. The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel. Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to start with a comment that some may see as controversial—uncharacteristically so, I hope. I want this Government to succeed. I think it is in the national interest; everyone should want our Government to succeed. I worry that continued economic stagnation poses an increasing threat to social cohesion, and that is why I agree so strongly with their growth mission and why I think it is so important. If that growth is to be meaningful, though, it has to be available, felt and understood in every part of the United Kingdom. It should not just be growth in the cities and towns; it has to be felt and understood in rural communities, coastal communities and, of course, our island communities. It is for that reason that I feel so strongly about the dangers of what the Government are doing on the removal of agricultural property relief. We have already seen the effect that the prospect of that has had on agricultural businesses, and of course agricultural businesses underpin so much of what happens in rural communities. Forty-nine per cent of farm businesses have already paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have downsized the scale of their operations and a further 21% intend to do so before next April. The truth of the matter is that these changes to APR have absolutely killed the sense of growth in the rural community. I welcome what the Minister said today about changes to the spousal transfer. I was inspired by the shadow Chancellor’s references to Shakespeare. I offer my own from A. A. Milne—maybe not quite so high-falutin’. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bear of very little brain, but I am pretty sure that what we heard from the Dispatch Box is more or less what the Government were telling us last year was going to be the case any way. If that is a concession, it does not seem to be much of a concession to me. It may have escaped the attention of the Treasury Front Bench that not every farmer is married and, indeed, a lot of farmers—like everybody else these days —get married and some then get divorced. Is the message from the Government to the farming community really, “If you want to hold on to the farm for the next generation, then get on to Tinder now, because that is your best chance of holding on”?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but are we not at risk of ignoring another threat: the Government themselves? It has not been that long since the Police Service of Northern Ireland published the data of every serving officer and member of staff, as a result of which people had to leave their homes. Once we allow the state to aggregate our data, is that sort of thing not inevitable?

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU SPS Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  1. What his Department’s priorities are in negotiations with the EU on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU SPS Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we all understand the reasons for the Paymaster General’s absence today, although I am less clear on his reasons for being absent from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Tuesday; he has declined our invitation to attend. A bold deal is indeed something to be wished for, but only if it does not bring with it lots of unintended consequences for the farmers, food producers, chemical companies and others whose work will be impacted by it. If Ministers will not engage with the Committee, will the Minister give me some assurance that there will at least be engagement with those vital industry interests?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. May I take the Security Minister back to the subject of the security of undersea cables? He may know that in Shetland we have had two catastrophic breakages this year as a result of fishing boats breaking the cables. It has now become clear that there is no basic sharing of information between the Government and cable companies, and the cable company in that case had to submit a freedom of information request to get VMS—vessel monitoring system—data. Surely we can do better than that.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have several BP pensioners, with BP obviously having operated the Sullom Voe terminal in Shetland for many years. The injustice they suffered, which left them with a pension worth about 11% less than it should have been because of the decisions of the trustee in 2021 and 2022, showed the inadequacy of the control and independence of the trustee in relation to the company. Does my hon. Friend agree that that requires urgent attention?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Reaching a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is one of the most significant developments that we are likely to see for farmers and other food producers. It could bring massive opportunities, but also significant risks, especially for arable farmers. Although any agreement will be implemented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is being negotiated by the Paymaster General, so the EFRA Committee invited him to give evidence to the Committee on 9 December. We sent the invitation on 17 September; after four reminders, we eventually received an email on 13 November indicating that the Paymaster General was “content to decline the kind invitation to give evidence on this occasion.” The Select Committee is not quite so content with this situation. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Paymaster General and his diary secretary to see whether he might be able to make himself available for 9 December? This is a basic discourtesy to Parliament.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady, who is making a very important contribution. This is looking to the medium and long term; but, candidly, if there is to be any civic infrastructure in Gaza, the seeds of that must come from the west bank, and in the west bank it is under threat day and daily. Therefore, although she is right to say that the international focus has to be on Gaza, we cannot ignore the fact that Palestinians in the west bank are undergoing a horrific programme of settler oppression, settler violence and settler expansion, which threatens both Gaza and the west bank.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I encourage him to go one step upstream and look at some of the wider policy context? If we are to regrow our manufacturing base, as we absolutely need to, we have to accept that it will be about future technologies, not just replacing what we had in the past. In my constituency, the development of tidal energy offers a supply chain of 80% UK product, which would then be exportable. If we could capture that, we would have something special—but for that to happen, we need a better policy framework to come out of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Farming Sector: US Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is right that any threat of an imminent increase in US beef imports in particular is clearly not the problem, but it has not gone away either. The US Department of Agriculture has a foreign agricultural service with 100 different offices, embassies and trade missions. They work with US farming groups around the world to promote their product, and they are not spending that money just to stand still. What will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that our farmers have the same opportunities, so that they can see free trade agreements not just as threats but opportunities too?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Farming Sector: US Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the potential impact of the trading relationship with the US on the farming sector.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her new position. I have to say, though, if ever there were an illustration of the scale of the challenge facing Ministers in turning around the Department, this is it. Let us not forget that this fund was created because the Prime Minister rolled over for a further 12 years the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson gave us for five years. If the Minister is sincere when she says that the aim of the Government is to maximise local investment, then using the Barnett formula to distribute the funding is ocean-going madness. By volume and value, Shetland alone accounts for 9% of the fish landed in this country, but Scotland as a whole will get only 8% of the funding. When will the funding formula be reviewed, and when will we hear exactly where the money will be spent and what it will be available for?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  What the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that Shetland could not control our own seabed. Does he maybe think we are too wee and too poor for that?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was struck by what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), said about the roots of the Scottish Parliament and the constitutional convention. Those of us who were part of that movement believed that there was a better way for Scotland to be governed, but things have moved on, and now the Parliament is seen as an exercise merely in asserting national identity. Does he agree that if we got back to the Scottish Parliament being about a better delivery of Scottish services for Scottish people, the difficulties that he is identifying would very quickly be solved?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  No, this is about the seabed.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will have heard other people make the point about that journey and the need for it to go from the Scottish Parliament down to communities. One of the most clamant cases for that journey to continue relates to the administration of the Crown Estate. We now see Crown Estate Scotland behaving in exactly the same way that the Crown Estate did when it was answerable to the Treasury here in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his colleagues in the Scottish Government should be devolving control of the Crown Estate—especially the marine estate—to communities like mine in Shetland?