Hansard

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which sets out that I am a partner in the family farming business of J Halcro-Johnston and Sons and that I am a member of NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

I am pleased to open the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I was disappointed that circumstances meant that I was unable to speak in last week’s debate, in which the Parliament sent a clear message to the Labour UK Government that it should drop its damaging family farm tax.

Opposition to the budget is growing. Labour’s plans will make it harder for farmers to pass on their farms to their children, and they risk seeing some family farms being split up or sold off entirely. Labour will claim that the tax will hit only a handful of the largest farms, but it is increasingly clear that it has not done its homework properly. Figures on the number of farms that will be impacted vary, but the Country Land and Business Association estimates that some 70,000 farms across the UK could be affected. Comparing the UK Government’s data with Scottish farming figures suggests that more than 12,000 farms in Scotland might be impacted. Despite Labour’s protestations, farmers who are assessing their own situations are warning that the impact will be considerably greater than Labour ministers claim.

It appears that even the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was kept in the dark about the changes until the night before the budget, has recognised some of the issues and made efforts to soften the impact of the changes—efforts that have been blocked by the Treasury.

This new tax burden, on top of other rising costs and tightening margins, threatens the sustainability of many Scottish farms. Maybe that is what Labour wants—family farms to be broken up to pay the new tax burden. Only last week in the chamber, Rhoda Grant said:

“If this policy has an outcome of ensuring that land holdings are smaller ... it will have a wider benefit for society as a whole.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; c 28.]

In the past few weeks, senior Labour figures have called farmers rich and privileged. They have said that farming

“is an industry we could do without”

and that we do not need small family farmers.

The UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who represents a seat in greater London, said that farmers need to

“learn to do more with less”,

clearly ignorant of the fact that we have been doing that for far too long already and with tightening margins. One Labour peer even downplayed the importance of domestic food production by sharing a tweet that claimed that we import enough food to keep the country fed—so much for Scottish Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment that food security is national security. If the Covid pandemic taught us anything, it was surely the need to build more resilience in our economy, and that should start with food. The NFUS is clear that Labour’s budget threatens food production.

Labour simply does not understand Scottish farming or seem to care about the damage that it risks doing to our rural economies. It certainly does not appear to understand the anger and fear that its budget is causing the farming community. The changes to agricultural property relief were only one part of this dreadful budget. Farmers will be impacted by the reclassification of double-cab pick-up vehicles, by the changes to the national living wage and national insurance and by increased tax on fertiliser.

Sarah-Jane Laing of Scottish Land & Estates was quite clear. She said:

“The cumulative effect of these measures threatens the immediate viability and future sustainability of thousands of rural businesses across Scotland.”

That is why farmers are so worried and so angry, and it is why, this morning, farmers from across the United Kingdom, including my colleague Tim Eagle and Conservative MP colleagues, attended the protests in London—protests that I cannot be at but which I fully support.

Last year, Keir Starmer told the NFU that

“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, it can’t come back.”

Last weekend, as Prime Minister, he hid from those who were protesting in Cardiff because they are worried about the risk of losing their farms. He refused to look them in the eye and tell them why he has backtracked on that position and betrayed them. This morning, farmers have taken their protests to the gates of Downing Street. Keir Starmer will not be able to hide from them today.

However, it is not just in London where farmers are gathering. This morning, farmers and supporters in Orkney rallied at the auction mart in Kirkwall. Those who gathered included people in the sector who were there to protest the impact of Labour’s policies on the sector, but they also included people who are not farmers who recognise agriculture’s vital role in rural communities such as Orkney.

We farm in Orkney and have done so for too many generations to remember. We do not have a large farm. Excluding hill land, which is used mainly for wintering sheep, we farm about 400 acres. We employ three people, some on a part-time basis, and we contribute to the salaries of local contractors, seed suppliers, engineering companies, equipment sellers, builders, vets, hauliers, fencers, ditchers and drainage companies. We are a key part of our local rural economy.

Given my commitments here, I am not as active on the farm as I could be—and as, I think, my father would want me to be—but I have lambed, calved and been up in the early hours of winter mornings to cover the milking when needed. I know all too well how tough a job it is, especially for those who do it day to day and in all weathers.

The new tax burdens only add to the pressure on farmers, particularly those who are nearing the end of their careers, who are involved in succession planning and who now have increased concerns about how to leave their farms to their children.

I am sorry not to see Rhoda Grant in the chamber today. Her response to my colleague Fin Carson’s intervention last week, telling his constituent that he should

“put his affairs in order”,—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; c 26.]

was absolutely shameful. I have known Rhoda Grant for a fair few years now, and I believe that she misspoke. I do not believe that that is what she would have said to any of our constituents in the Highlands and Islands in a similar situation or in any situation in which Labour’s changes to agricultural property relief have impacted them. I would have asked her to reflect on that, and I would have been happy to take an intervention to give her the chance to clarify what she feels those who did have their affairs in order—until Labour, without consultation or, it seems, reliable assessment of the impact, changed the rules—should have done now.

I meet local farmers in Orkney regularly, both as a politician and as a friend and colleague. Confidence in farming—confidence in what the future holds—is falling. There is so much uncertainty about what future agricultural support will look like, how it will be delivered and the levels of such support. Labour’s raid on rural communities only makes the situation worse.

I recently attended a farm visit in Orkney that was organised by NFU Scotland. Members might think that a bit of a busman’s holiday, but the challenges that farmers face can differ widely, even on a farm that is very close to and very similar to my own. Some farmers at the start of their careers are growing their businesses. They are looking to invest in cattle, equipment or buildings—new buildings that meet modern standards for animal welfare or that can accommodate the size of vehicle that we now have to use. All of them are committed to building their family farms. They are committed to the sector, regardless of the hardships. They are committed to their local communities and the part that they will play in them. All of them are worried about what the future holds.