Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I clarify whether the hon. Member believes that the farmers making on average less than £45,000 year, and the 25% making less than £20,000 a year, are those with the broadest shoulders?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must remember that investment allowances have now been reduced and taken away. Increasing the EPL by a further 3% while decreasing investment allowances makes the North sea a really difficult place to invest in.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister think that that is the right balance, given that Offshore Energies UK suggests that the changes will cost £12 billion in tax revenues?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back. As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas. North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest. This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk. The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies. What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally. Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security? What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Sarah and her family have farmed beef cattle in my constituency for over 70 years and they had always planned for her sister to continue the family legacy. Earlier this year, Sarah’s mother died suddenly and unexpectedly. She was just 58. Sarah said to me that, despite already having a tragic year, it was made even worse after the Budget. She said:“Changes to agricultural property relief have hit us hard while we’re already struggling to cope with bereavement and losing Mum.”What would the Prime Minister say to Sarah and her family, in what has been the most difficult year of their lives, in the light of the family farm tax?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  How does the Secretary of State envisage the commissioner standing alongside others in the armed forces in terms of the chain of command? Has an assessment been made on that?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Great British Energy: Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, just days after the Budget, Apache announced that it would exit the North sea by 2029. It said: “The onerous financial impact of the energy profits levy…makes production…beyond 2029 uneconomic.” What assessment have the Government made of the impact of those policies on current jobs in north-east Scotland, and how will Great British Energy compensate for the loss of those jobs?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister shakes his head, and he has been shaking his head throughout the debate. The issue is this: the Government are not listening to farmers the length and breadth of the country. They are not listening to the National Farmers Union, and they are not listening to the CLA. People who speak for the farming community, people who represent the farming community, are not being listened to, and that is why they are in this position. It does not matter, it seems, how much we say to the Minister, or how much we say what our constituents are saying. The Government are not listening, and they are not willing to listen. Last Friday, I met members of NFU Scotland’s north-east region. Perhaps the Minister will not listen to this either, but they told me about some matters that they had been concerned about. One was a farmer whose father, aged 90, still owns the land and still farms it. He said to me, “I will have to sell. I thought I had a lifetime of farming ahead of me, but now it turns out that I only have what is left of my father's lifetime.” He did not sound angry; he just sounded broken. Another put it like this: “It is just a waste. Do they”—the Government—“not understand the resource that we have invested into family farms for generations—the skills, health and safety, teaching about husbandry and agronomy? We invest so much more than just money into farms, and this will all be lost. It is just such a waste.” In their manifesto the Government said that “food security is national security.” They reiterated that last week, adding: “The Government’s commitment to supporting farmers and rural communities is unwavering.” —[ Official Report , 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 23.] However, in the few months since the election, the Government have done nothing to justify those claims. Granting solar farms on prime land, taxing fertiliser, removing the ringfence from the agricultural budgets for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and making changes to inheritance tax will impact family farms for generations. The Government have missed a key point: it is not words that impress or satisfy our farming communities; it is action, and so far this Government’s actions have let our farmers down.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State tell us where he obtained those figures?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency and across the country, family farmers are the custodians of our countryside. For generations, they have contributed to our nation’s food security and land stewardship, provided employment, supported local supply chains, and brought rural communities together. The changes to agricultural property relief—this family farm tax—is the wrong tax aimed at the wrong targets. As we have heard many times, farms, while asset rich, are cash poor. Most farmers do not have hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash available to pay an inheritance tax bill, so they will have to sell the very assets that they use to farm to raise capital.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Flight Cancellations · Hansard source

  More

  Aberdeen airport is another that struggles with cancelled flights. Over 4% of flights were cancelled last year, which makes it one of the airports with the highest cancellation rates in the country. Does the Minister agree that we must make sure that all our regions in the UK, including Scotland, have a reliable connection, especially to London, for things such as business travel? Linking our rural communities to urban centres is really important, so what can his Government do to make sure that those things improve?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The average farm in Aberdeenshire is 490 acres, and average values are about £5,000 an acre for bare land. Once the farmhouse, building machinery and livestock are added, that is suddenly well over the inheritance tax threshold and have a huge IHT bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds coming your way. DEFRA figures show that 19% of farms do not make a profit and 24% make less than £25,000, so does the Minister suggest that farmers sell the land they use to grow the food, sell the machinery they use to harvest the food or sell the buildings they use to store the food, in order to pay this bill?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  If I had time, I would focus on the increase in whisky duty, and the impact on our farmers and small businesses, but I will focus on the oil and gas sector, which is so crucial to the north-east of Scotland and my constituency. As expected, the oil and gas sector was a target for tax in the Budget. I welcome that first year allowances were retained, but other measures were announced that, although well trailed, will severely damage the energy sector. Whether it is increasing the energy profits levy by 3%, which will lead to a 78% tax rate on our oil and gas businesses, extending the windfall tax to 2030 or removing investment allowances, each will compound the investment difficulties facing the sector, and will impact investment and future jobs. The changes to the windfall tax and allowances will see the Treasury receive 83% of cashflow from oil and gas, with companies taking home just 17%. That is the highest share of any Government compared to other comparable offshore mature basins globally. The punitive taxation on our oil and gas sector puts current, real jobs and career opportunities in the north-east of Scotland at risk. Working people, who are the same people with the skills and expertise that we need for our energy transition, are not being protected by the Budget. The windfall tax and the removal of investment allowances also hit homegrown UK-based companies the hardest—the ones that have emerged and grown in north-east Scotland, and the ones that usually have an almost exclusively UK-based workforce. All their profits are subject to the windfall tax because their investments are all in the North sea. That is unlike multinationals, which can buffer the worst impacts of the windfall taxes with their overseas investments, so the changes are mostly hurting our homegrown businesses, which we should all want to protect the most.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that at this time when the world is more dangerous than it has ever been, any reduction in defence spending is the wrong way to go?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Economic Investment and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to ask the Chancellor to pre-empt tomorrow’s Budget, although I might actually have some luck if I did, based on current form. Instead, can she confirm to me that she fully appreciates how important agricultural property relief and business property relief are to the farmers and family businesses that do so much to grow local economies across the country?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but as I am setting out, the Government’s proposals for the North sea in respect of taxation and cutting down on licences do not guarantee that. As much as I and the hon. Member want and need for that to be the case for our constituents, we cannot guarantee it. That is why it is so important that we get the transition right. The Bill must include consideration of the impact on the public. Communities such as Leylodge and Kintore in my constituency face unprecedented infrastructure pressures. Those communities have seen a 3 GW hydrogen plant, an expanded substation, multiple battery facilities and new pylons. What are their statutory protections? What assurances are there in the Bill that certain communities will not be over-saturated with an unsustainable amount of infrastructure? Before the election, the Labour party claimed that GB Energy would reduce household bills by £300. Since then, Ministers have not repeated the promise and have not explained when or how it will be achieved. I am sure that the Labour Government would not want us to think that that promise was simply a headline-grabbing figure before an election, so I look forward to their clarifying that commitment and voting for our amendments on that figure. Let me move on to the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We hear that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs—apparently, 69,000 of them will be in Scotland, which, if delivered, would be welcome—but as is the running theme in this Bill, we do not have sufficient detail to offer even a grain of certainty to comfort those whose jobs are on the line now. Existing oil and gas and supply chain businesses in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east need a timeline so that they can plan their business and workforce. How, when and where will jobs be created? What kind of jobs and skills will be required? Of course, we now have certainty that one job will not be coming to Scotland, as we hear that the CEO will be based in Manchester. Is Aberdeen a headquarters in name but not in nature? We already know that there will be satellite sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Which other executive management jobs will not be based in Aberdeen? We in north-east Scotland are not buttoned up the back, so will the Minister confirm today that Aberdeen is still the headquarters for GB Energy—and I mean that in no other way than the meaning that the general public would understand? The funding may not be sufficient, the overall energy strategy is incoherent and there is no clarity on the delivery of jobs or any mention of £300 energy bill savings, but surely the Bill offers certainty to the very industry that will deliver the energy transition. That brings me to the strategic statement. One thing that we know for sure is that we do not know all we need to know about what GB Energy will do. As a result, the uncertainty will continue. For communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan, and for businesses, supply chains and those working in the existing energy industry, that is profound. We need to know how those communities will be brought with us in the transition—if it is, indeed, to be a just transition. GB Energy will not generate energy, but it cannot instead generate mass redundancies across north-east Scotland. As has been mentioned, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive power to dictate what is in the strategic statement, and he has given himself the huge responsibility of ensuring that GB Energy delivers its aims. The work of the existing energy industry, and of communities such as Gordon and Buchan, must be taken into account. If it is not, the transition to cleaner, greener energies will be less efficient, less affordable and less possible. As such, I sincerely ask that the Secretary of State prepares the strategic priorities in a timely manner, taking account of stakeholders in the industry, the impacted communities, the current jobs and skills, and the existing businesses that are the bedrock of our future energy generation. Because the Bill gives us all but no clarity on what is going to happen, the strategic statement—which we are all waiting for—is going to be the key document in dictating whether it will or will not be a success. As I said at the start of my speech, I want it to be a success; I want the UK to be a clean energy superpower, just as we are, and always were, an oil and gas superpower. If we get this right, that superpower status will drive the economy and jobs of the future. We cannot allow investment to be lost, because that means that investment in new technologies will be lost. If we lose the expertise, the supply chains and the private investment because of the way this Bill is handled and how GB Energy is handled—there is no guarantee that private investment will stay in the UK just because GB Energy has been created—we will look back at this time and wish we had done things differently. I really do not want to be in that situation, because it is my communities in Gordon and Buchan and in north-east Scotland who will suffer the most.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are few areas of the country that are as reliant on, and therefore as vulnerable to, the energy industry as my constituency of Gordon and Buchan and wider north-east Scotland. It is because of this that I want the Government’s energy strategy to be a success. Indeed, my constituents need it to be a success. However, that is why I have severe reservations about the Bill and why I believe that we must view the Great British Energy Bill not in isolation, but alongside the Government’s wider energy strategy. I begin by considering the public money involved—the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money going into Great British Energy. Labour has cited international examples, such as France’s EDF, as inspiration for Great British Energy, but let us examine EDF’s recent history, which reads like a cautionary tale of state intervention gone wrong. In 2022, the French Government were forced to fully nationalise EDF, costing €9.7 billion, and in 2023, they had to inject another €13 billion. That huge expenditure of taxpayer money did not even solve EDF’s problems; the company now faces debts exceeding €64 billion. Therefore, is £8.3 billion of investment into Great British Energy realistic? Let us move on to Labour’s wider energy strategy—perhaps there are assurances there that can help mitigate the apparent inadequate funding. Let us not forget that the UK will be using oil and gas for years to come, which is not disputed. The expectation that we should get this from our domestic oil and gas supplies should not be controversial, yet our energy security is being put at risk through the Government’s actions and words. Jobs and investment in Gordon and Buchan and across north-east Scotland are being lost, and a home-grown energy transition is being made ever more difficult. It is incoherent to pump public money into the energy sector, while at the same time scaring away private investment from the very companies that will be vital to the energy transition, whether by announcing that there will be no new North sea licences, extending and increasing the windfall tax or removing investment allowances. Offshore Energies UK has warned that expected tax changes could see investments in UK projects by oil and gas producers fall by about £12 billion by 2029. Last week, Reuters reported that a North sea producer is looking to sell stakes in its North sea assets and relist on the US stock exchange. The same article quoted the chief executive officer of TotalEnergies, who said that his team had halted exploration in the basin, and that: “With this political landscape, even if you find something you’re not sure you can develop it… The situation in the UK is very problematic.” The CEO of Deltic Energy also announced plans to cut spending, telling Reuters: “The clear message from key investors was ‘do not invest in the UK’.” That is just a snapshot, but it puts the Government’s £8.3 billion into context, alongside the other decisions that they are making.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciate why Conservatives are so concerned that the plans coming forward from the Labour Government will do exactly the same to north-east Scotland if this is not handled properly?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member appreciate that the issue is not legislating for jobs but the lack of accountability in the Bill?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production. BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges. Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field. About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it. In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes. APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his closing remarks. A constant theme of today’s debate has been the importance of family businesses and family farms and the vital role they play in our rural economy. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly said and, of course, knows well from his ultra-rural island constituency and communities, the interconnection between farms and other local businesses cannot be denied. Any impact on farming impacts everything else, whether that is marts, vets or suppliers—the knock-on effects are endless. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and echo her words about the Government’s commitment to not increase taxes on working people. If farmers and family businesses are not the pure definition of “working people”, I really do not know what is. Similarly, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about the need for cross-party working on this issue; as we all strive to secure a stable rural environment for the economy and employment, that is really important. We should absolutely work on a cross-party basis as we go forward. Farms and businesses must adapt and innovate to survive across generations. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly identified, the ability of farms and family businesses to do so will be severely hampered by changes to APR and BPR—they must be able to survive across generations, as well as during single generations. Put very simply, people need cash in order to pay a tax bill, and they need a lot of cash to pay a very large tax bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) put it so succinctly, asking many farmers and family businesses to pay a tax bill from an illiquid asset is very difficult: they do not have liquid to play with. As I said, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that we are less than two weeks out from the Budget, and therefore he is completely unable to confirm or deny rumours, but I hope the concerns that have been raised today have been heard and will be considered in good faith, because they are not just the concerns of people in this Chamber. They are the concerns of our constituents—of farmers and small and family businesses the length and breadth of the country. The Minister pointed out that the cost of BPR has risen to £1.3 billion, but that compares very favourably with the £225 billion of tax income that family businesses contribute to the Exchequer each year. I will conclude by reiterating my calls for clarity on this matter, maintenance of these reliefs, and meaningful engagement with affected communities on any such matters going forward. Today’s contributions have strengthened the case for action in this area: our rural communities, family businesses, food security and stewardship of our countryside all depend on the certainty that those reliefs provide. I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s important debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief. I rise today to address a pressing issue affecting not only my constituents in Gordon and Buchan but rural communities and family-run businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom. As we approach the autumn Budget, there is growing anxiety, yet to be put to bed, among farmers and family business owners about the potential changes to agricultural and business property reliefs. APR and BPR play a crucial role in securing the longevity of farming and family businesses. Without inheritance tax reliefs, the value of an individual’s business assets will be chargeable at a full 40%. The rate of inheritance tax in the UK kicks in at a relatively low value in relation to the value of farming assets, even for a small farm, particularly when compared with that of other countries. There is speculation in the media, coupled with Government silence, on the future of these reliefs, which is causing profound problems. In a meeting with the Country Land and Business Association just yesterday, I heard how some of their members are already taking rash and rushed decisions because of this matter, which will impact their businesses, tax position and operations for years to come. Its members—our constituents—fear the worst in terms of changes to APR and BPR in the Budget and the profound impact that may have on their businesses, which, in many cases, provide employment for their families and wider communities, and have done so for generations. APR and BPR are not, as some would have us believe, just tax loopholes for the wealthy. Viewing those reliefs as fair game in a Budget shows a complete lack of understanding of their importance and function. APR and BPR are lifelines for hard-working family farms and entrepreneurs, who form the backbone of our rural communities and local economies the length of the country. These are same businesses that we MPs are always too delighted to be seen to visit and champion as pillars of our communities and for their hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit; it is now time that we put those words into actions. Many of these businesses would not survive a succession event without APR or BPR—it is that simple. There is a reason why the reliefs have been in place for almost 50 years, which is that they work and are needed. Without them, farming and family businesses would change, and the UK’s rural business landscape would be unrecognisable. Agricultural businesses are vital for not only economic activity but food production and security, land stewardship and environmental management. As farmers face ever-tighter margins from increased environmental obligations, spiking input costs and global market pressures, there is already considerable strain on farming profitability. It is important to understand that although farms have high asset values, they are often cash poor. In 2022-23, across all types of farms, 17% were failing to make a profit and 59% were taking home less than £50,000. Even where a profit is made, it is usually directly reinvested back into the farm—the business—in order to increase efficiency, develop or adapt. Cash does not simply sit idly; it is usually invested into assets needed to grow the farm and allow it to function, be it via land, buildings or kit. APR is also vital for ensuring that farms can be passed to the next generation without a crippling inheritance tax bill. The continuity of family farms is necessary for the maintenance of our cultural heritage and expertise and, crucially, generational stewardship of our countryside and responsibility for food production. Without APR, many families would be forced to sell their land or buildings or even split up the farm in order to pay inheritance tax bills, which, even for the most modest of farms, could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not in the millions. That would mean selling the very assets and losing the scale needed to operate and produce food, fundamentally undermining the viability of those businesses. It is important to appreciate that farms do not operate in isolation; they typically engage with multiple businesses in close proximity to their holdings. In my recent meeting with the National Farmers Union Scotland, I was told about a farm in north-east Scotland that engages with no fewer than 92 separate businesses within a radius of just a few miles; those businesses all benefit from that one farm. The closure of a single farm will have a ripple effect throughout any local economy. The average age of a farmer in the UK is 59, and 35% of farmers are aged over 65. We all know that it is common to see farmers still managing their holdings well into their seventh or eighth decades, but that means that, on family farms, a succession event—planned or otherwise—can hit very suddenly. Without the reliefs, we risk losing a generation of farmers, threatening the future of British agriculture. Many family businesses will simply cease to exist if they are removed. The impact will extend not just to landowners, but far beyond, to tenancies and the wider rural economy. In a recent poll by the CLA of over 500 landowners and farmers, 86% said they were likely to have to sell some or all of their land upon a death if inheritance tax reliefs were scrapped, and 90% said that the UK’s food security would be damaged in the long run. I find that really hard to disagree with. The potential loss of productive agricultural land and farmland has serious implications for our national food security, and I remind the Minister of the line in the Labour manifesto, that “food security is national security.” Let us also consider the alternative: if large areas of land were sold to cover an IHT bill, who would be likely to buy that land? Would it be another farmer, who would also have to manage their own capital in light of their own family’s IHT bill down the line, or a large corporate company, where boardrooms and bottom lines dictate the approach to environmental management, room for nature and food production? I do not think that that is the ownership and business structure of rural Britain that this Government, or indeed any of us, are striving for. We must also consider the impact on tenants as well as landowning farmers. Any changes to APR that make it less appealing for a tenancy to be created will have a detrimental impact on tenants, the tenancy sector and the next generation of farmers.