PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief - 5 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for asking this question. I wish a happy new year to her and to all Members of the House.

The reforms announced in December go further to protect more farms and businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief.

The allowance for the 100% rate of relief for agricultural property relief and business property relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million when it is introduced in April. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. Taken together with the reform announced at the recent Budget, widows and widowers will benefit from up to £2.5 million of their spouse’s allowance, even if their spouse passed away many years ago.

Our changes further reduce the number of estates forecast to pay more inheritance tax, and they further reduce the liability for many of the remaining estates. Compared with Budget 2025, the number of estates claiming APR—including those also claiming BPR—affected by the reforms in the coming tax year is expected to halve, from what would have been 375 estates to just 185 estates. That means that around 85% of estates claiming agricultural property relief in 2026-27 are forecast to pay no more inheritance tax on their estates under the changes.

The Government have announced these changes after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community and family businesses, and I am pleased that the National Farmers’ Union and others have welcomed the changes. Even after the reforms, the Government expect to raise around £300 million in 2029-30 from our changes to these tax reliefs. We are making fair and responsible choices to support the farming community, with a record £11.8 billion investment in sustainable farming and food production over this Parliament, and to modernise our tax system for the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this first urgent question of 2026—and what a way to open the new year, with yet another Government U-turn. But where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This is her tax and her U-turn, and she should explain why she did not announce this at the Budget. Over the past 14 months, farmers, rural communities and the Conservatives have campaigned relentlessly in and out of Westminster against these vindictive taxes. This U-turn acknowledges what farmers have been telling the Government from day one: Ministers have got their maths badly wrong, and many more farms and family businesses will be broken up as a result of Labour’s higher taxes. Does the Minister accept that?

Why have the Government U-turned? Does it have anything to do with the recent Labour Back-Bench rebellion? Can the Minister tell the House how many family farms and non-farming family businesses will still have to pay this death tax? Are tenant farmers included, given that the now Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted at the time that 14,000 tenant farmers were missed out of the Government’s original calculations? Can the Minister also confirm whether he signed the tax information and impact note for this U-turn before the Budget?

This partial U-turn does not save every family farm and family business. Indeed, for many the U-turn simply comes too late; we have seen record farm closures under this Government, and it has taken a great personal toll on many families. Given the pain, anguish, distress and, in some cases, sorrow that this cruel tax has caused families up and down the country, will the Minister now have the good grace to apologise on behalf of the Government to farmers and family business owners?

The Government announced the change in December because we had continued to listen to the representatives of family businesses and the farming community. I note that the National Farmers’ Union and others have welcomed the change, which will increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million.

I think it is the right change to make, and it ensures that we get the balance right. We are still raising £300 million from the very largest estates. If the Conservatives would prefer not to raise that money and give a £1 million tax cut to an estate worth £10 million, that is their choice. It is not our choice. We think we have got to the right place on this policy and are striking the right balance—both raising revenue from those with the very largest estates, and making sure that we have a higher threshold. Because of the changes we announced at the Budget, someone in a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million.

I can confirm to the House that I did not sign the tax information note for the change that was announced on 23 December before the Budget. On the numbers, as I said, the number of estates affected who claim agricultural property relief—including those also claiming BPR—is expected to halve, from 375 to 185.

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. I was pleased to meet NFU representatives for Dartford and for Kent in late 2024 and January 2025. Following those meetings, I passed on the view to Treasury Ministers that it was right for the Government to close the inheritance tax loophole and stop the price of farmland from being inflated by people purchasing that land to avoid inheritance tax, but that the threshold should be set at a significantly higher level to reduce the risk of smaller family businesses being affected by the changes. Does the Minister agree that the reliefs are now fairer to family farms but will still achieve their purpose of reducing tax sheltering and raising vital revenue for public services?

Yes, I do believe that we have got the balance right. It is worth noting that the top 4% of claims accounted for over half the Exchequer cost of business property relief and the top 7% of claims accounted for 40% of the Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief. That is hundreds of millions of pounds in tax that was forgone but will now be raised under these changes from the very largest estates. I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue over recent weeks and months.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to House staff and all Members in the Chamber. This policy was a disaster from the get-go. It came with no warning, no consultation and no clue. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to point out the damage it would do to family farms. We have repeatedly and clearly highlighted that it would fail to tackle the loopholes exploited by private equity companies but hammer the family farm, damaging our food security in the process. The changes are welcome, but they do not touch the sides, and they are a clear admission by the Government that they have got it badly wrong.

There is now only one sensible course of action left: to scrap the policy in its entirety. Will the Government now do that? If not, the Liberal Democrats will table amendments to the Finance Bill to bring this measure down. Will the Government allow a free vote so that those on their own Benches who want to vote against the measure are free to do so?

I am always interested in reading Liberal Democrat amendments, even though none of them will ever get passed in this House—not least on this measure, where we have got to the right position. The changes that will be in the Finance Bill will raise about £300 million. It is a legitimate position for the Liberal Democrats to say they do not wish to raise that revenue and that instead they would borrow more money or cut public spending on services like our NHS. That is not our position. We think that this is a fair and proportionate reform.

I welcome this sensible compromise and point out that the £800 million put into the environmental land management scheme in 2023-24 will become £2 billion by 2028-29, along with the sustainable farming incentive being reintroduced in April, the land use framework and the farming road map. Does the Minister agree that the Labour Government are now well on track to raise food security and help our family farmers?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this and many other important issues that affect rural communities up and down the country, as well as in her constituency—a fantastic part of the world that I am sure I will be able to visit soon. She is right that the Government are taking steps—for example, through our £11.8 billion fund to support sustainable farming and food production—and I look forward to working with Ministers in other Departments and across Government to ensure that we continue to support our rural and farming communities.

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

I welcome this announcement and I pay the warmest possible tribute to the farming unions and others whose tireless campaigning since the Budget of 2024 has made this happen. These changes make the policy better, but that is not the same as saying that they make it good. It is surely bizarre that in 2025, two farms could both be valued at £5 million but one of them would pass free of inheritance tax while the other had an inheritance tax bill of £500,000. Surely the Government now have to publish the impact assessment that they have presumably done so that we can all see the reasons for this change and have some confidence that they have got the figures right this time.

The figures that the Government have published on this change and at previous Budgets are drawn from actual claims and from engagement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on both APR and BPR. That analysis shows that before this change, up to 275 estates a year would have been affected, and that that number is now forecast to halve to around 185. That means that around 85% of all estates claiming APR, some with BPR, will now not pay any additional tax. I stand by those figures. We published them when we made the decision and they are included in the letter that I and the Secretary of State have sent to all Members.

On the right hon. Member’s point about £2.5 million or £5 million, I think he was referring to the fact that a couple can pass on up to £5 million and for a single person it is £2.5 million. That is a long-standing position. It means that the inheritance tax nil rate band and the residence nil rate band are transferable only between spouses and civil partners. Making any unused allowance transferable in the same way is consistent with that long-standing approach.

My constituents very much welcome the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, which, as the Minister knows, I have raised repeatedly. The changes to the reliefs mean that family farms will be protected while large landowners who bought agricultural land simply to avoid paying tax will no longer have that loophole. Does the Minister agree that these changes show that the Labour Government are listening to rural areas and to rural Labour MPs, and that, unlike the Opposition, they are serious about proper policy development and not just headline chasing?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we on this side of the House are the true and better representatives of the rural community. There are over 150 MPs on this side of the House who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies—I believe that there are as many Labour MPs representing rural constituencies as there are MPs on the blue Opposition Benches.

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to you and your staff. Farmers in my constituency will welcome this change to the thresholds for APR and BPR. However, it took 14 months to achieve it and rural communities really do feel discriminated against by some of the measures that this Government are taking against them. I ask the Minister to convey to his colleague, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, that the Government should not enact any changes to shooting or trail hunting, because to do so would really damage and annoy rural communities?

We will be going ahead with the changes that were set out in our manifesto and that have been announced recently. I think that that is the right thing for us to do.

Happy new year to you and the team, Mr Speaker.

I start by thanking the Minister and his Department for working actively with rural colleagues and myself for the last 14 months. In the many conversations that we have had, both face to face and in wider correspondence, we have set out the huge number of issues that are well known to this House, but at the heart of this, and the reason that so many of us are concerned, is the lack of profitability in farming. Baroness Batters’ report will go a huge way towards addressing some of the systemic issues in farming, but does the Minister agree that we also need to tackle supermarkets and unfair practices and to address lots of the long-standing issues, and that the Treasury as a whole needs to continue to engage with rural MPs to make sure that we introduce further reforms to support farming profitability?

I thank my hon. Friend, too, for her work on the Select Committee, and for representing rural communities, including hers. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government are looking at what more we can do to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products. Of course, we support having a competitive supermarket and retail system in this country, so that we can have low prices for consumers, but we have to ensure that those prices are fair for farmers, and for the communities up and down the country that we rely on to produce good British produce.

This policy has caused huge stress for rural communities across North Yorkshire. What discussions is the Minister having inside government about other policies, such as the policy on rates for public houses in rural areas, to ensure that this error is not made again?

Of course, as the tax Minister—that is why I am at the Dispatch Box today, to address a point made earlier—I look continually at what improvements we can make to our tax system to ensure that we continue to support both rural and urban constituencies and communities up and down the country. If there are changes that the right hon. Member would like to see, he is of course welcome to write to me, on that or any other matter.

I have worked extensively with the National Farmers Union and its Welsh branch, and with the Ulster Farmers’ Union in Northern Ireland. These changes are very much welcome, but I say to the Minister—and to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting next to him—that it is important that we have these conversations with Labour MPs and Members from across the House at every opportunity, because this has damaged our farming communities. I also have no truck with what the Opposition say, because I have been in opposition and I know what it is like. Conservative Members let our farmers down. We are getting to the heart of this, fixing the situation, and supporting our rural communities properly, and I welcome the changes, especially for my constituents in Gower.

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, for the experience and expertise that she brings to the House as Chair of the Select Committee, and for the important work that she has done on this and other issues. The changes that we have made to this policy mean that it is now fair and balanced, and protects more farms. As I have said, the number of estates expected to pay more tax will halve. We Labour Members and the Government can hopefully continue to focus on what we can do to support our farming and rural communities—for example, on the £11.8 billion of investment that we are putting in over the course of this Parliament.

Our farming and rural communities in Cumbria and right across Britain should be utterly proud of themselves, because this U-turn is their victory, and I pay tribute to them. However, the appalling emotional and economic damage done to farmers over the last 14 months has been cruel and will have a lasting impact. Will the Minister apologise to the farming community for the last 14 months, and recognise that many hill farms in Cumbria will still be hit by this tax, because they are worth more than £2.5 million, although their average income is less than the minimum wage? Does this tax not remain an attack on British farming and on food security?

If the Government had not made these changes in December, Opposition Members would have been standing here asking us to make those changes. We are coming forward with a revised position—we are increasing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million—and Members are criticising us for that change. We think it is the right thing to do, and we are doing it in good time—before the Finance (No.2) Bill, in which these changes will be made, is voted into law later this year.

Yes, some estates—the very largest—will continue to pay more after these changes, but it is worth bearing in mind that, relative to the position of a few months ago, estates worth £2.5 million will now pay significantly less; there is a £300,000 reduction in their tax liability. For an estate worth £5 million, it is a £600,000 reduction. These are significant reductions in the amount of tax that the very largest estates will have to pay, but we do think that it is right and fair to continue with a reform that strikes the right balance between the need to raise more revenue and the need to protect smaller family farms.

I wish you, my constituents in North Somerset, House staff and hon. Members a happy new year, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s decision to amend the thresholds for APR and BPR, as do rural communities in my constituency, and extend my thanks to the organisations that campaigned for this outcome, such as the NFU. However, this is only one part of a larger problem. For 50 years, our country has witnessed the gradual erosion of our rural community sustainability, national food security and farm profitability. I look forward to 2026 being the year that the farming sector gets the wider change that it needs in order for the new year to be happy and profitable.

I wish my hon. Friend’s constituents a happy new year. The Batters review, which was published just a few weeks ago, set out ideas that the Government can take forward to ensure that farming can be profitable and sustainable. I know that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government will continue to work on those important objectives.

Although I welcome this announcement, which directly contradicts what the Secretary of State told me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) on the day that the House rose for Christmas, is the Minister aware that a significant number of my constituents who farm in the Dengie peninsula and elsewhere will still face a significant inheritance tax bill that may prevent them from passing on their farm, as they inherited it, to their children? If the Minister is anxious about the scheme being used for tax avoidance, will he reconsider the NFU’s suggestion that there be a clawback mechanism, which would allow the Government to take back the exemption if a farm was sold within a certain period after inheritance?

No, we will not be considering the clawback proposals put forward. Instead, the Government have come forward with the change that was announced in December, which increases the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. It is worth remembering that the tax rate paid above the higher threshold is half the rate that anyone else who has sufficient assets would pay if they were liable for inheritance tax, and that any tax liability can be paid interest-free over 10 years. On balance, while these changes will affect some of the very largest estates—the Government have published the numbers, which are based on the actual claims data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; it estimates that fewer than 200 estates will pay additional tax—almost all the estates paying additional tax will pay significantly less than they would otherwise have done, because we have listened to family businesses and farming communities.

Although this issue is clearly of importance to the farming industry, it is also of importance to small firms in the steel and engineering sector in my constituency. The owner of Special Quality Alloys, Benn Beardshaw, wrote to tell me that the firm had been in the family for many years, and had been passed on from one generation to another. He was really concerned that the measure as initially proposed could lead to a break-up of that important firm, which has won the Queen’s award for enterprise, or to it being sold off. Will the Minister confirm that this measure will equally help those sorts of small businesses, which are vital to the overall wellbeing of the steel and engineering sector in Sheffield?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which has given me a chance to return to a question that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), asked, but that I did not quite get to—he will have to forgive me. I will put on record for the House that the number of estates claiming only business property relief is set to fall from 325 to 220 a year as a result of our increasing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million.

I have met representatives of Family Business UK. I know that, as well as having private conversations about APR, Labour Members have been discussing the BPR proposals with the Government. The uplift in the threshold will mean that family businesses that people wish to pass on will now be subject to a lower tax rate, or will not have to pay the tax at all in many cases.

I find it interesting that the Minister says that this is the right policy. That is what the Government said on 23 December, but not what they said at oral questions on 18 December—the day before we rose for recess. I have spoken to farmers who will now not be affected by the tax, but who have spent cashflow and hard-earned savings on financial advice to ameliorate their position. Things are not getting easier for farmers; just this morning, one of my local farmers got in touch to say that he was informed on new year’s day that his milk supply faces a 3p per litre cut. What is the Government’s assessment, alongside what is in the Batters report, of the ongoing financial impact on farmers, be it of poor Government policy or of poor supply chain practices?

Earlier in the year, Members asked us about making these changes, and we have come forward with a revised proposal that includes a higher threshold. That is the right thing to do; it shows that we have listened to representations from the farming and business communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) mentioned. The Batters report, which was published on 18 December, made a number of recommendations. We will take forward many of those proposals to ensure that we support increased profitability for farmers and continue to work on important sustainability initiatives.

I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the Chancellor recently to highlight the impact that the changes to APR and BPR would have had on farmers in Derbyshire Dales. I therefore sincerely thank the Minister and the Chancellor for listening to me and other members of the Labour rural research group, and raising the tax-free allowance. Since the change was announced, more than 100 farmers have written to me to say how pleased they are about it. One farmer said:

“This has been hanging over me all year, making me ill, and I can’t believe the relief I’m feeling right now.”

Will the Minister or the Chancellor take the opportunity to visit a farm in Derbyshire Dales to see for themselves the positive difference that this change has made?

I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation. I will pass it on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will carefully consider it myself.

The Minister referred to the importance of manifesto commitments. Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that there would be any tax restrictions on inheritance for farmers? In fact, when they were in opposition, did Ministers not go around promising not to impose such a tax? They then did precisely the opposite. When he talks about manifesto commitments, will he have a slightly less selective memory and avoid misconstruing the position of the NFU, which is still in favour of the abolition of the tax altogether? Tom Bradshaw is my constituent. I hope that the Minister will send him his best wishes and congratulate him on exposing the Government’s hypocrisy.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Bradshaw last year. The NFU published statements—both at the time of the announcement and around the turn of the year—welcoming the changes that the Government have proposed. The hon. Gentleman asks about manifesto commitments. We were very clear in our manifesto that we would return economic stability to this country, putting behind us the chaos of Liz Truss and the chaos that the Conservatives left us with. Part of that is about ensuring that we do not continue to borrow at excessive levels, as they did, but bring borrowing down—[Interruption.] Borrowing is coming down in every single year of the next five years. We are ensuring that we can raise, in a fair and sustainable way, the revenue to fund our public services.

I hugely welcome these changes, which have been met with real relief by the farmers in my constituency, and I am grateful to the farmers who fed in their perspectives to me over the last year and allowed me to pass them on to the Treasury. Can the Minister reassure me and my local farmers that he will continue to listen and engage with our farming communities in this way, recognising the inherent value of farming, but also the great contribution it makes to the economy and our food security?

I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations that I know she has had with Ministers on this and other issues in recent weeks and months. Yes, we will continue to do all we can to support farmers and the farming industry in this country. That is part of why we are working hard on trade deals, to make sure we can improve access to markets for farmers here in the UK so they can export more of their produce overseas.

I pay tribute to the Minister: he is back out again doing a sterling job of being a totally discredited Chancellor’s human shield. He will remember the Finance Bill that we debated just before Christmas, which took three hours in this place, and two hours of that was taken up with agricultural property relief, as I pointed out to him at the time. He wants us to believe that he has moved this policy into an acceptable position, but it is no such thing: this is a policy that Labour expressly said they would not enact, and then they did it, and now they have made it slightly less bad. I and the NFU Scotland are firmly opposed to this in its entirety, so will he take a win for a hard-up Government and pause this policy pending a proper analysis?

Yes, we did discuss this at Treasury questions and on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and we will have time to discuss it in the Committee of the whole House next week too—and I can see from the number of Members wishing to speak now that there are many more questions coming so we may have many more hours today, Mr Speaker, to discuss it as well. In the end, the position that the Government have now reached is that we are going to amend the Finance Bill to make this change and increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. That will, we expect—and it will be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the usual way at fiscal events—raise £300 million, money that we can put into our public services, rather than continue the chaos of previous years with additional borrowing. It is right to look in the round at fair and necessary tax changes that we can make on those with the broadest shoulders, so that we can fund our public services adequately.

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to Carlisle NFU and my constituents who have raised this issue with me over the last 14 months, and I thank the Minister and his colleagues for engaging constructively and listening to those representations. North Cumbrian farmers face land price increases as a result of forestry firms snapping up large parcels of land and large landowners seeking to abuse the IHT system by hiding their wealth, and this is an important step in balancing the need to tackle that abuse and rising land prices and the need to raise the revenue required for our village schools, local health services and to tackle crime. Does the Minister agree that this now achieves that balance?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her strong representation of rural constituents and rural communities. She makes a very important point. It is worth noting that this is a tax relief, and the tax relief as it stood before the changes that the Government have come forward with since the 2024 Budget meant that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief accounted for 40% of the Exchequer cost of the relief. That meant £219 million in foregone tax revenue—revenue that, by and large, this Government will now be raising from the very largest estates to help fund our public services in a sustainable way. The Opposition were never able to do that because of their chaotic management of the economy and the public finances.

The Government have heard from these Benches time and again about the impact the family farm tax has had on food security and the risk to countryside stewardship and our environment and the economic viability of farms, but also, crucially, about the impact on farmers’ mental health. My question to the Minister is simple: on behalf of farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury, why did this decision take so long?

The Government wanted to ensure that the changes that we are legislating for in the Finance Bill in the coming weeks came forward before that Bill was passed. We have continued to listen to farming communities and family businesses. The changes with which we have come forward, including increasing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, coupled with the changes announced in last year’s Budget, will mean that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax free, which we think is a fair and proportionate way to raise revenue from some of the largest estates in the country.

South Norfolk is home to 400 farms, and I put on record my thanks to Will, Nick, David and Deborah, who are some of the farmers have supported me hand in glove over the past 14 months in making representations to the Minister. I welcome these changes, but the biggest threat to family farming in South Norfolk right now is biosecurity risk. I urge the Treasury to pay special attention to avian influenza and African swine fever, so that we can protect those family farms going forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for the strong representation that he has provided for his constituents since he was elected in 2024, and for raising an important issue. I am sure that DEFRA Ministers are alive to that issue and will continue to have conversations with hon. Members.

I refuse to call this property relief on what is an absolutely new tax, but will the Minister tell us if the agricultural property tax threshold will rise in line with agricultural land prices?

The Government have set the thresholds for tax policies over the period of the OBR’s forecast, and it would not be right for me to comment on the changes that may or may not happen after that. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that throughout the time that Margaret Thatcher was in power, we did not have a system like the current system, so he is not quite right to say that this relief has always been there? It was not there when the political hero of many Conservative Members was in power.

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all your team. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I thank DEFRA and Treasury Ministers for engaging with farmers and National Farmers Union members in my constituency, and for listening to their views. Farming has had a terrible decade—much longer than 14 months—with rural services cut, farming budgets unspent, failed Brexit plans and trade deals that sold out British farmers. Does the Minister agree with me that with the changes that we have made to APR, the findings of the Batters review and the funding that this Government are putting in place, we can now turn a corner on that terrible decade for British farming?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend’s powerful contribution. He made important points about how the trade deals negotiated by the previous Government undermined British farming and that there was no consistency of investment and support for farmers up and down the country. What do rural communities think about that? At the last general election, they turfed out hundreds of Conservative rural MPs and elected over 150 Labour MPs to represent rural and semi-rural constituencies. Labour Members are now the mainstream voice of rural communities up and down the country.

The psychological impact of the past 14 months has been profound in rural places like North Shropshire. At every primary school visit that I have made in the past 14 months, I have been asked by children as young as seven or eight to confirm that I oppose the family farm tax, because it is having a devastating impact on their families at home. The uncertainty has also had a devastating impact on related businesses, such as agricultural machinery suppliers. It will continue to have an impact by making business owners deliberately keep their businesses small so that they do not have to pay inheritance tax, because they cannot sell off part of their farms as they will no longer be viable. Why are the Government continuing with this daft policy of restricting growth in rural areas?

The Government want to support growth and investment in rural communities. That is why we are putting in £11.8 billion of support over the course of this Parliament and ensuring that we improve our economy and our economic fortunes across the board as a country after the chaos of the last 14 years. We have had six interest rate cuts in a row, borrowing costs are coming down, and inflation is falling faster than people forecast—it is now forecast to continue to fall. All those long-term changes to improve our economic outlook will support businesses in rural communities and communities across the country.

May I put on record my thanks to farmers such as Nick, Mac, Debbie, James and Graham in the Northumberland branch of the NFU in my constituency? I was in contact with them regularly, and they welcomed the Minister to my constituency to hear at first hand about the potential impact of the policy had it not been changed. I urge him to impress on colleagues the importance of buying British wherever possible. The best way to improve farming profitability is to ensure that much of the public sector food procurement is done with British farms and to ensure that farmland is not lost. To replace potential food-producing land, more food-producing land does not need to be cut out of forests elsewhere in the world.

I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to his constituency last year; I believe it was shortly after I was made a Minister on 1 September. It was a very productive and useful visit, and I thank the farmers and members of the community I met when I went to a lovely café and had some lovely tea and cake with my hon. Friend and those farmers. It was a really helpful conversation for me, and I am thankful to him for his representations on behalf of his constituents over many months. I want to work with him on procurement and ensuring that we can continue to support farmers and farming communities; I know that Ministers across Government, particularly in DEFRA, will continue to do that in the months and years ahead so that we can turn the page on the chaos we had under the previous Government.

I cannot adequately put into words the fear, concern and stress that farmers in my constituency and right across the country have felt as a result of the policy announced at the Government’s first Budget. That same fear is now being felt in rural pubs up and down the country due to the changes to business rates. Will the Minister apologise to those farmers for the fear, stress and cost that he has put them all through? Will he indicate to many publicans across Staffordshire that the Government are going to U-turn on business rates so that they do not close rural pubs?

The Government have been listening to rural communities, farming representatives and the representatives of family businesses. That is why, after listening, we have come forward with these changes, which we think strike the right balance between the necessary impulse to ensure a fair and sustainable tax system and continuing to protect smaller businesses and farms. I am sure that we will have many more chances in this place to continue to discuss business rates.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder that the previous Government and previous Conservative Prime Ministers were roundly rejected by the country at the last general election. People in rural communities and communities up and down the country voted for change for the better with this Labour Government and for a Government who will continue to represent and support farming communities up and down the country. Let me praise my hon. Friend on his recent appointment to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to which I know he will provide an invaluable contribution in his continued representation of rural communities.

I wish you and the staff of the House a happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Regardless of the reason for the change in policy—whether it is simply fear of the electoral consequences of breaking election and manifesto promises to farmers, or a belated recognition of the importance of the farming industry to feeding the nation in an increasingly unstable world—I welcome these changes. However, I would point out to the Minister that despite his assurances, 25% of farmers in Northern Ireland will still fall over the threshold he has announced, which will have an impact on family farms because of the cost of land and so on. Having seen the disaster of the policy, does he accept that the only answer is to abolish it altogether?

No, I do not accept that. That is not the answer.

I thank the Minister for his considered engagement with rural Labour MPs such as myself on this issue from the get-go. I also thank farmers—at least in my part of Cornwall—for their dignified engagement at what I know has been a difficult time. Does the Minister agree that where we have landed now strikes a much better balance, one that in relative terms favours small family farms compared with industrial concerns, institutional investors and those looking to use agricultural property as a means of avoiding tax?

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement on this and a whole range of issues that affect rural communities in Cornwall—he is a strong advocate for his constituents. As he says, we have now come forward with a change in the APR and BPR thresholds to make sure we can protect those smaller family farms.

I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and for the answers to be on point.

This U-turn comes too late for too many. It is extraordinary to hear Labour MPs saying that their farmers are delighted; mine are sick with relief after 14 months. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that he knew that some farmers had planned to take their lives or had already done so, yet it still took him well over a week to decide that rural lives matter. What was it that suddenly changed after 14 months for him to decide that our farmers should be stood by, and should not be questioning whether or not they were going to be here for next Christmas?

Over the course of recent months—since I have been in the Government, from September onwards—Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Treasury have continued to engage with farming communities and with business communities. As has been raised by some Members today, it is worth remembering that this change affects business property relief, not just agricultural property relief. As a result of that listening and engagement, we have come forward with this change in time for it to be included in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

This month marks 12 months since I first called on the Government to raise the APR threshold. I strongly welcome their decision to do so, and thank NFU Cymru and the Farmers’ Union of Wales for their tireless campaigning. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will continue to listen to rural communities like mine?

Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to listen to, and engage with, the over 150 Labour MPs who represent rural and semi-rural constituencies.

It really should not have taken over a year for the pleas of thousands of farmers to be heard, and for the Government to finally concede their mistake and change the disastrous family farm tax. However, it is clear that they still simply do not understand the industry. Many farms in Glastonbury and Somerton are run by multi-generational family partnerships, rather than married couples. Those businesses will not benefit from the combined spousal allowance of up to £5 million, so will the Chancellor finally give up and completely leave farmers alone to get on with what they do best: producing food for the nation?

We think that continuing to raise around £300 million from this policy is the right thing to do, so that—alongside the other changes that the Government are making—we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way to fund our public services.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue over recent months—it has made a real difference. Given his engagement on this matter and rural issues, does he agree that this country needs a rural strategy, which this Government should be delivering?

This Government have our farming road map. We have also published the Batters review, and we will be taking forward many of the proposals and the recommendations in it, so that we can continue to support profitability and sustainability for farmers and our farming communities.

A guid new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House.

The past 14 months have been hell for the farmers of Dumfries and Galloway, and the Minister has made it clear that he will not apologise for that. Will he stop fantasising, like the wealthfinder general, about the money he can take out of agriculture and instead concentrate on helping British farmers to put British food on British tables?

We need to continue to do all we can to support British farming so that we can have more British produce on our shelves and so that countries overseas can have more British produce, too. That is why we have been working hard on our trade deals to secure more access for British farmers to markets overseas.

I thoroughly welcome the increase in the threshold, and I remind the Minister that in terms of farming profitability, my Conservative predecessor—a former DEFRA Secretary —described their Australia deal as

“not actually a very good deal for the UK”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]



The Conservatives sold out and undercut our farmers with trade deals to New Zealand, whereby we could not export to New Zealand, but it could export to us. These deals were cheered on by Reform. Will the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will never sign such incompetent and damaging deals, and that we will not take lectures on farming profitability from the Conservatives or Reform?

My hon. Friend gives me the chance to quote Michael Gove, who admitted that the previous Government had let down British farmers. He said:

“I can confirm I think we negotiated poorly with Australia, and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia in defence of our farmers”.

He admits that the last Government made mistakes, failing farmers on trade; I wonder whether the Opposition will do so too.

This partial U-turn on the dreadful family farm tax is partially welcomed by farmers in Boston and Skegness, but where is the Chancellor to come and admit the error of her ways? Jobs have been lost, investment has been slashed and, tragically, lives have been lost by this grief tax. Will the Minister, at the third time of asking, apologise to the farming community?

As the Minister with responsibility for tax, I am here answering questions about tax, and I am happy to continue to do so. The change that the Government came forward with last month—we will be legislating for it in the Finance Bill—will increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. We are doing that because we have listened to farmers and their representatives and to family businesses, too. We think that is the right thing to do, and we think it strikes the right balance.

I thank my hon. Friends in DEFRA and the Treasury for listening to farming colleagues, including NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales, in making this welcome change to the proposals for agricultural property relief. It will mean that many more Welsh farms will not pay any additional inheritance tax. The Minister will know that the previous Conservative Government signed very detrimental trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which within 10 years will lead to limitless meat imports. Will he look carefully at what can be done now to help those Welsh family farms to maintain their farming tradition? At the moment, they will be open to severe competition, and we need to look at everything that can be done to help them.

The previous Government negotiated poorly when it came to trade deals. When the Conservatives negotiate, Britain loses. Labour has negotiated four new significant trade deals that will help to ensure that British businesses—farming businesses and businesses of all sorts—can access more markets, more easily. That is the right thing to do for long-term growth and productivity.

I welcome the partial U-turn. When I met a number of farmers on Boxing day, all 400 of them were very concerned that the next phase of this Government’s relationship with rural Britain would be a consultation on banning trail hunting. On the basis of this experience, I think that the Minister could go back to the Treasury and ask his officials to put together a team to work very closely with their counterparts in DEFRA to absolutely ensure that the farmers’ obligation, and indeed their true intent—to produce food and be good stewards of the environment— can be combined, and to ensure that never again in the course of this Parliament will such measures be undertaken as they were last year.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the issue of trail hunting. That was in our manifesto, and it is part of our animal welfare strategy to continue with some important changes there. I think it right for governing parties to make progress on the commitments that they made when they stood before the country.

I welcome the Government’s changes in their plans in relation to inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The current system does not work. We need a tax regime that protects genuine family farms but does not let the super-rich dodge tax by buying up land, and many farmers in my constituency have the same concerns about that, but they have also made it very clear to me that the £1 million threshold was too low and would have a significant and detrimental impact on farming in my constituency. Along with many other Labour Members in rural seats, I have made that case to Ministers directly, and I am very pleased that the Govt are raising the threshold to £2.5 million, because that will make a huge difference for farmers in my constituency. I am very interested to hear, though, what steps the Government will be taking—and what steps the Minister can take, with colleagues—to ensure that profitability is at the forefront of our work with farmers, particularly on things like—

Order.

I will leave it there.

The Batters review focused closely on this, and we will be looking at its proposals and recommendations, and ensuring that we can do all that we can as a Government, within the constraints that we have, to continue to focus on improving farming profitability.

Order. Here is a new year tip: look at your question, cross most of it out, and then continue.

In my constituency, we have not just a lot of farmers but a huge number of other businesses and livelihoods that rely on those farmers, and the whole of that rural economy has been negatively impacted over the last 14 months. Will the Minister undertake not just to apologise to communities like mine, but to ensure that the Government will genuinely start listening to rural communities? At the moment, they do not feel listened to, understood by or even cared for by this Government.

We will continue to listen to rural communities, and to farming communities, to make sure that we can support them as they seek to grow and invest in their businesses in order to improve and support the communities that they are part of. It is because we have been listening to the representatives of farming communities and family businesses that we have come forward with the changes that we think strike the right balance.

I welcome this sensible compromise, and thank the members of the NFU in Devon for their work and for talking to me, both here and in Exeter. The Government’s support for nature-friendly farming through environmental land management schemes is to increase from £800 million a year to £2 billion a year over the coming years. Can the Minister confirm that they are taking the necessary steps to ensure that we can, in a sustainable and environmentally-friendly way, produce the food that we need in this country?

I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement that we have had on this and other issues that affect his constituency, which I know contains some rural elements. He has raised an important point. We need to continue to work in partnership with farmers, and with their representatives and trade bodies, to make sure that we can support sustainable food production in the UK, and we are investing £11.8 billion of support over this Parliament.

I thank all the South Shropshire farmers and businesses for their tireless campaign. They were continually told by the Government that they were wrong, but they have now been proved right. They are still telling me that this tax is wrong. The family farm tax is not right. Will the Minister apologise for the heartache, pain and suffering that he has caused South Shropshire farmers and businesses, and scrap the tax completely?

We will not be scrapping this tax completely. We have tabled an amendment that the House will have the chance to debate next week in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill. We think that the proposals that we plan to implement will raise £300 million in a fair way and protect smaller family farms.

Last month, I visited Portnellan farm in my West Dunbartonshire constituency. I received a very warm and courteous welcome from husband and wife farmers David and Freda and their son Chris. The Scott-Parks run their family farm and were keen for me to hear and see at first hand the challenges that they face in ensuring that the next generation can continue to farm at Portnellan. I listened to their request that we review the original proposals. Does the Minister agree that 85% of all farming estates will now be protected from inheritance tax but, importantly, that we will maintain the original principle that tax avoiders should not use land to avoid tax at the expense of hard-working family farmers such as the Scott-Parks?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone has agricultural or business assets worth £2.5 million, for example, they will now pay £300,000 less in inheritance tax than they would otherwise have paid; if they are worth £5 million, they will pay £600,000 less than they would have paid before the changes that we announced last month. The challenge of the proposals from the Opposition parties is that they would provide a £1 million tax cut to an estate worth £10 million. Their priority is clearly giving the very largest estates in this country tax cuts worth millions or even tens of millions, rather than using revenue in a fair way to fund our public services.

Farmers in North Herefordshire welcome this change, as do I, but there are still huge problems with the policy: it does not even fix the tax loophole for people who buy up land to avoid tax, and it has created huge economic damage and heartache in farming communities. First, why did it take more than a year to listen to farmers’ voices? Secondly, will the Treasury please engage brain before announcing policy in future, and listen to and work with farming communities?

We will, of course, continue to engage with, listen to and work with farming communities on the policies that we are putting forward. It is interesting to see and hear that there is at least one wealth tax that the Green party does not support.

I thank farmers in my constituency of Banbury and Chipping Norton for engaging constructively with me on the issue—well, the vast majority of them, anyway. I know that they will welcome these changes, as they will welcome the record £1.8 billion investment in sustainable farming and food production provided by this Government. However, they are concerned about trade deals, having been left high and dry by the previous Government, so will the Minister confirm that this Government will protect farmers, not sell them down the river as happened previously?

Having grown up in rural west Oxfordshire, I know the importance of farming and rural communities in the fantastic county of Oxfordshire, which thankfully now does not have a single Conservative MP—long may that continue. It is a very good thing that we have strong Labour representatives in north Oxfordshire who are continuing to fight the good fight for their communities.

This partial U-turn on the family farm tax is undoubtedly welcome, but does the Minister understand the hell that he has put farmers through during the past 14 months, not just in my constituency but across the United Kingdom? He should do the right thing and scrap this dreadful, dreadful tax.

We will not be going ahead with the hon. Member’s proposal of scrapping this change entirely.

I put on the record my thanks to the farmers in my constituency of Harlow who have engaged really productively on the issue. In particular, I pay tribute to Richard and Jack Scantlebury of Great Canfield. Can the Minister talk further about how the record investment of £11.8 billion in sustainable farming can help to benefit farmers such as Jack and Richard in my constituency?

My hon. Friend is right that we are putting that amount in over the course of this Parliament to support innovation, agritech and all the things that farming businesses can and should do to invest and grow and to support their communities. That is the right thing to do, and it is turning the page on the chaos and the underfunding of previous years.

The Minister said that this reversal of plans to introduce inheritance tax on many farming families has happened

“after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community”.

This news just before Christmas was indeed a massive relief, but given that the farming community did not say anything in December that it had not been saying for the previous 13 months, will the Government listen properly in future?

Yes, the Government will make sure that we do continue to listen.

I thank the Minister for listening and acting on the concerns that I and many other Labour MPs raised alongside our farming constituents. Now that a happier compromise has been found on inheritance tax, the issue remains one of securing a profitable future for nature-friendly farming in our country. Can the Minister provide an update on what actions the Treasury is taking to support the swift roll-out of our manifesto commitment for 50% of the food bought by the public sector to be locally produced?

I cannot update my hon. Friend at this moment, but I would be happy to write to him on that point.

The Government say they have been listening carefully, but they had 14 months and four votes to listen to the Opposition and the farming community. One question is: what changed the Government’s mind? The second question is: who made the decision—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—and how long did they take to persuade the others to make that right decision?

Government decisions are made collectively. Yes, the Government have listened to farming communities and farming businesses, and to representatives of family businesses that would also have been affected by the £1 million BPR threshold, which was the same as the APR threshold.

It was very welcome news that the Government had revisited the issues of business property relief, which will help family businesses in my constituency, and agricultural property relief, which means that up to £5 million can be passed on by a qualifying couple. It was also right that the Government considered this area as a whole, because too many people, including famous folk off the telly, had bought such properties with a view to insulating themselves against tax. Can the Minister assure me that we will take steps to support our farming community by not selling them down the river with dodgy trade deals, as we saw with Australia and New Zealand under the previous Government, and that we will work closely with our European export partners? Will he also ensure that the SFI and other subsidies get to where they need and are spent in a timely way, because they went unspent under the previous Government?

My hon. Friend is right to mention the disastrous trade deals that happened under the previous Government, and I thank him for giving me the chance to mention the trade deals that we have implemented, which seek to support businesses across the country to access more markets. I hope that, with our continued engagement with the European Union, we can continue to do that closer to home, too.

Does the Treasury subscribe to the general commitment that the Government have made to ensure that all policymaking considers the impact of decisions on rural areas? If it does subscribe to that rural-proofing commitment, will the Minister elaborate on how he will ensure that it is abided by in future so that rural communities, such as those in Ceredigion Preseli, are not subjected to yet another ordeal such as we have just endured?

I can reassure the hon. Member that I and Ministers will continue to think through the impacts on rural communities—and all communities—when we come forward with changes to tax or other policies. It is because we have done that that we came forward with the change we announced just before Christmas, and we will be making that change in the Finance Bill in the coming weeks.

Family farms and family businesses across the Weald of Kent have been through appalling emotional turmoil in trying to work out how to avoid leaving their children unaffordable, crippling tax bills when they die. They are operating on razor-thin margins and small profits, and many of them have been forced to shell out thousands of pounds on professional services advice on this issue, which is now worthless. What does the Minister have to say to them?

To those families—people with farms and businesses that would have been affected by the lower threshold, but will now be affected less or not at all by the higher threshold—I would say that we have listened. Over recent months, we have heard the concerns that were raised, and that is why we have raised the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means a couple can pass on up to £5 million of agricultural and business assets tax-free on inheritance. I briefly remind the House that, above that threshold, the tax rate is half the rate that everyone else pays—20% rather than 40%—and that those who pay it will, if they so need, have 10 years to pay it interest-free.

Farmers are among the most robust members of society, yet since autumn 2024 several have spoken candidly with me about the mental health impact of the family farm tax, in an industry that suffers a rate of suicide four times the national average. The changes to the Government’s family farm tax are welcome, but will the Government take this opportunity to apologise to Gloucestershire farmers for 14 months of torment?

We have listened. We have made sure, after the engagement we have had with farmers across the country, their representatives and the representatives of family businesses, that we have come forward with a policy proposal that we, on the Government Benches, now think is balanced. It raises £300 million from the very largest estates and does so in a fair way that means we can continue to fund our public services sustainably.

Fourteen months is a long time for farmers to have the sword of Damocles over their heads. Many still do, because this is only a partial U-turn in the policy. The Minister has said many, many times today that he is and has been listening to farmers, but will it take another 14 months before he hears them and scraps this policy altogether?

We heard what farmers were saying and that is why we have come forward with the changes we announced last month.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster made many representations here with regard to the damage that this policy would do to Northern Ireland farms, but there is one specific point I want to ask the Minister about. He has mentioned a number of times the allowance being passed between couples and civil partnerships. Example 2, in his own Government paper, states:

“Two people (such as siblings) who jointly own a farm will be able to pass on a farm up to £5.65 million”

under the allowance. If there is a father and daughter, uncle, aunt, niece and nephew in that partnership, can they pass on that allowance, too—seeing as he is the tax Minister?

They can each pass it on up to £2.5 million to whomever they choose to pass it on to. In the inheritance tax system more broadly, it is the case that the various bands and allowances are only fully transferable between spouses, and this is consistent with that policy. But it would be the case that if a farm was owned, say, by a brother and a sister, the brother could pass up to £2.5 million to whomever he wished and the sister could pass up to £2.5 million to whomever she wished. That is what example 2, which the hon. Gentleman is referring to, gets at.

Worcestershire’s farmers have had to endure 14 months of sleepless nights over this policy before this partial U-turn. The Minister has hinted, at the Dispatch Box today, that he appreciates he will also have to U-turn on business property rates, because of the transitional relief coming off too quickly. Can he commit to the House that he will do that U-turn in less than 14 months?

We are having a discussion today about agricultural property relief and business property relief. I am sure we will have many occasions in the coming weeks and months to continue to discuss the changes that the Government have made on business rates to support businesses through the transition, because of course there has been a significant increase in their rateable values, coming out of the pandemic. I would just say to Opposition Members that the changes to the rateable values and the valuation methodology were signed off by Conservative Ministers. We have made sure that we are providing support, for example business rates will be capped at 15% for many pubs this year.

It is wholly unacceptable that farming families in places such as Mellor and High Lane have had over a year of uncertainty and anguish since the Government first announced these tax hikes. The Government got it wrong and the changes we are talking about today are welcome, but will the Minister commit to consulting farming communities before making any future changes to taxes affecting farming communities? That was the step in the process that was missed and it could have saved them 14 months of anguish, had they got it right last time.

Because I sign them off, I can tell the hon. Lady that there are many consultations on tax changes that we publish alongside fiscal events. If she wished to engage with the consultation on electric vehicle taxation, she could do so; if she wished to engage with the consultation on the high-value council tax surcharge that will be published shortly, she could do so too. The Government have published many consultations on tax changes, and on those where formal consultations are not published—it is not universal—we continue to engage in detail with those who are affected, as we have done with this change.

Despite many opportunities to do so, the Minister simply refuses to apologise. Despite warnings from so many organisations that this tax would do real harm, farmers, including those in my constituency, have been forced to live with fear and uncertainty for more than 14 months. Can the Minister explain what support his Department will give to the families who have shelled out money for advice and whose businesses have suffered irrevocable damage as a result of this Government?

I have been asked that question already by an Opposition Member, but I am happy to give the right hon. Lady a similar answer. I can say to those families that we listened carefully to the representations that were made about the level of the threshold as it was originally set at the Budget in 2024, and we have now come forward with a change to increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, which, coupled with the changes announced at the Budget in 2025, will now be transferable between spouses, allowing those families to pass on up to £5 million tax free.

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. For 14 months, I have stood here alongside my colleagues and asked various Ministers to reconsider this policy. For 14 months, farming organisations up and down the country have campaigned relentlessly against the policy. Why did it take the Government so long to listen to them? Would it not be nice if someone was able to stand at the Dispatch Box and simply say, “We’re sorry—we got this wrong. We commit now to consult with farming and rural communities on any further changes to tax reliefs affecting them”?

We have come forward with a change to this policy after listening to farmers and farming communities and to the representations that have been made. We think that this is the right change. We will have the chance to debate it again when we consider the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee of the whole House next week, when the amendment that has been tabled will be voted on. In the end, Opposition Members who wish for the Government not to go ahead with this change at all should come forward with ideas for how they would raise £300 million from those who have the very largest estates in this country. We think it is right to raise revenue from those with the very broadest shoulders, and that is what this change will allow us to do.

After months of sleepless nights, fear and uncertainty, this partial U-turn is a victory for farmers—I pay tribute to farmers across the country, but particularly those in my constituency of Bromsgrove and the villages. Despite the U-turn, this policy should still be scrapped. What can the Minister say to farmers regarding incentives? Where is the incentive for a farm to invest in very expensive capital equipment if it may tip them over the threshold of liability for the family farm tax?

Just to be clear, this policy applies only to the farming or business estates worth more than £2.5 million, or £5 million if owned by a couple. There are still significant incentives to grow and invest in people’s businesses. This tax rate is half the rate for everyone else paying inheritance tax, if they have sufficient assets to get over the threshold. I think that is worth noting. Only around the very largest 10% of estates in the country pay any inheritance tax at all.

On behalf of the family farmers of Melksham and Devizes, can I point out that farm prices differ across the UK and that raising the level of APR to a flat £6 million, say, whether a farm belongs to a couple or to an individual farmer, would be a great help in assuring the farmers about the future, freeing them from worry and ensuring their future growing our food?

We think it is right to have the same level across the country. It is the same in other parts of our tax system, and it would not be right to have different tax thresholds for different small parts of the country.

I certainly welcome the increase in the threshold as far as it goes, and I commend the campaigning farmers who secured it. In explaining it today, the Minister said that the Government have “got the balance right”, but of course those are the very words that he used at the Dispatch Box and in Westminster Hall when defending the £1 million threshold, and each time he caused torment and anxiety to farming families. Is he sorry for the anxiety caused needlessly to those farmers?

The number of estates that will be affected by this change will fall by half as a result of the changes that the Government announced late last year after listening to representations from various business and farming communities. That means that rather than 375 estates being affected per year, it will now be closer to 185 estates affected per year. Around 85% of estates will not pay any additional inheritance tax, and the vast majority of those that do will pay significantly less than they would have done before the change we announced late last year.

I welcome the revised threshold change; it is a first step in the right direction. I thank the local farming community in South Warwickshire and the National Farmer’s Union in Warwickshire for their tireless campaigning. However, farmers across my constituency tell me that the changes to agricultural property relief have created many months of uncertainty, freezing investment and growth and affecting succession planning. Why did the Chancellor and her team announce changes to the agricultural property relief last year without meaningful consultation with family farmers first?

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the changes that the Government have brought forward. We did continue to engage with representatives from the farming community. I believe that the Prime Minister mentioned being in conversation with Mr Bradshaw from the NFU, and Ministers across Government have of course listened to and engaged with the farming community. I myself went up to Hexham. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) has left—for other important business, I am sure—but I met farmers in his constituency. All those different forms of engagement have proved very valuable indeed.

Farmers in Waveney Valley are relieved at this change, but they are also frustrated that the Government have not been listening about the underlying causes of why it is so difficult for farmers to make even a living wage to put food on our table. It has been obvious from the outset that the Government needed to review the threshold, so it is baffling that it took 14 months for them to do so. Does the Minister recognise the emotional and financial cost of this 14-month delay?

I recognise that many estates that would have been affected by the lower threshold, rather than having to pay additional inheritance tax, will now not be paying any inheritance tax at all. We have moved hundreds of estates out of having to pay additional inheritance tax. We have also reduced the tax liabilities for those larger estates too, because we have listened.

Many of my rural constituents are relieved that the Government have partly seen sense on this issue. Given the track record of U-turns from this Government, when I meet with a group of local farmers next week, what reassurance can I give them that the Government will not change course on this policy again in the near future?

The Finance (No. 2) Bill will be making its way through the House in the coming weeks, and once the Bill is law that change will come forward. If the hon. Gentleman meets his farmers on 7 April this year, the change will already be in place.

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the farmers of West Dorset who have never stopped campaigning against the family farm tax, and especially those hardy ones who have repeatedly driven their tractors up to London to let their views be known. This is just the latest in numerous assaults by the Government against our farming communities. So will the Minister take this opportunity to put on the record that the Government will not agree to President Trump’s demands that we accept more food imports at lower food standards as part of a US trade deal?

We will always fight for the interests of British businesses and British farmers in the deals we strike with countries across the world.

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the last 14 months, constituents in Newbury, which I am proud to represent, have really felt the burden of the unfair family farm tax. I have hosted farmers here in Parliament and invited all parliamentarians to come and meet them, and I am proud that Members—predominantly from the Opposition Benches—have made that effort, and the Government have started to listen. But I have family farms in my constituency that will still have to pay £600,000, and they will have to sell off their farms to pay those tax bills. When the Government table their amendment, will they publish an assessment of those remaining farms and whether it is likely that they will need to be sold off to fit Labour’s tax bills?

The amendment, which has already been laid before the House, sets out the changes that the Government are making. In the letter that all hon. Members will have received, we set out our estimate that the number of estates we think will be affected will halve, and that about 85% of farming estates claiming APR—sometimes with BPR—will not pay any additional inheritance tax at all as a result of these changes.

Looking at farm sizes and land values locally, I fear that family farms will still be paying the family farm tax. What evidence is there that £2.5 million realistically reflects the value of a typical family farm in a constituency with higher land values, such as Thornbury and Yate?

May I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their engagement on this important issue today? We have set the threshold at £2.5 million for a single person and £5 million for a couple as a result of the changes announced at the Budget 2025. We think that threshold is right and fair. It means that the number of farming estates that will be affected will fall by half, and the vast majority will pay no additional inheritance tax at all.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the Minister said that agricultural property relief was not available under Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who brought it in under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, and it was subsequently increased to 100% under John Major. How might I go about getting the Minister to correct the record?

The hon. Lady, due to her experience, will know that the Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ contributions, or those of Ministers—if only we were. She has no doubt got her point on the record, and we do not wish to continue the debate.