PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Agricultural and Business Property Relief - 14 January 2025 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I will call Graham Stuart to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on small businesses.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to see so many colleagues from across the House here today. Perhaps it is not surprising that we have a redoubtable Minister, who picks up the poisoned chalice on so many occasions. He will do so today, no doubt both well informed and with good humour, as he has done previously.

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a recipient of campaign donations from businesses and farmers across Beverley and Holderness. Given the rural nature of my seat, I will start by focusing on the twin impacts of the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farms, followed by the impact of changes to BPR on family businesses. We have just a half-hour debate, and a colleague asked the good question of why it was so short for something so big. That means I will probably be the sole speaker, but I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, because I know that concern is widespread.

In her autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a significant change to APR and BPR, set to take effect from April 2026. She is imposing a 20% tax on the value of land and machinery exceeding £1 million. That is known by many of us as a family farm tax. By the Government’s own estimate, it could result in one farm closing in every rural constituency every year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When a small farm has been in a family for generations, that family knows the local watercourses better than anybody else. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that as those small farms disappear and move towards development, flooding issues may result because the local knowledge that would prevent flooding will be lost?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. On Friday, I visited Ian and Rebecca at Bygott farm just outside Beverley, which is about 220 acres. Their profits would be wiped out by the expected inheritance tax for 10 full years, with 10 years to pay it. The expected annual payment for 10 years would be greater than their profit last year. They also play that vital role, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, of looking after the watercourses. The villagers nearby do not know what a critical part they play in maintaining those watercourses.

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. All my neighbours in Northern Ireland are small farmers. Everyone will be impacted, because the threshold of £1 million is too low. The threshold should be between £4 million and £5 million, which would give a chance to retain the family farm. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to talk to the National Farmers Union or the Ulster Farmers Union to ascertain their legal opinion, which is against what the Government are introducing?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.

Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.

As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.

I met a farmer a couple of weeks ago in my constituency who is 80 years old and has made arrangements for passing his farm on to the next generation. However, the seven-year rule is unlikely to affect someone of that age. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a modest compromise could be made by the Government to allow for those sorts of situations?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spoke to another farmer in my constituency and his farm is owned by three people, one of whom is his father—who has a third of it—and who has been in ill health lately, is in his early 80s and is highly unlikely to live for the next seven years. All the planning that they responsibly put into ensuring that that farm continues to contribute to waterways, the environment, and the nation’s food security has been cast aside and turned over by this Government’s ill thought-out plans.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is exactly what they will do. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intent to bolster the big international corporations and hurt the small player who is an embedded part of the community.

So many people I speak to genuinely try and run their farms to be supportive of nature and of local business. Once major corporations are involved, these will not care where they get their supplies from. They will not be focused on that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this brutal change to inheritance tax—let us call it what it is, a family farm tax—will destroy family farms and farming in the UK as we know it? Does it not make nonsense of Labour’s claim to believe in food security for the UK? We need a U-turn straightaway.

The question I am now being asked by my farmers is: did this policy come about because the Government did not know what they were doing and through a lack of knowledge by the Labour party of the farming community? Or will we look back at this and see it for what it is: theft by the state of land from private owners?

I will come to that point later in my speech.

When that farmland is gone, it will take with it the livelihoods of families who have devoted generations to feeding our nation and will have a permanent negative impact on the nation’s food security.

Before my right hon. Friend goes on too much further, I wonder whether he agrees that another effect of this is that, at a time when we need to unlock growth and productivity, it will discourage and disincentivise the investment in our family farms that is so badly needed?

My right hon. Friend is right. That is why I appeal to the Minister: if the Government do not care at all—in fact, if the Government see farmers as some sort of class enemy—it still does not make sense to do this, because it will weaken our food security. Go and talk to farmers—as I do in my area all the time—and it is obvious that their personal commitment to things like flood protection, understanding of the land, and thinking in the long term, is not just words.

People think in the long term when there is no thought in their minds of selling. Why would anyone not put their money back in? Farmers put all their money back in because they are happy to do so, and they have a lifestyle as part of that. All that is put under threat if the investment in a piece of machinery or infrastructure that could help them to green their land will be subject to a 20% tax. Suddenly the economics do not add up and the bank will not want to lend.

The right hon. Gentleman will know, as all of us in this room do, that in GB we enjoy some of the most competitively priced fresh produce available anywhere in Europe and that is precisely because of the investments in production technology that family farms have made over generations. Is he concerned that at a stroke this Government, myopic about the workings of agriculture, have made them immediately—overnight—stop that investment, and consumers will feel that in food prices?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that has not been made so far: we have among the lowest food costs in the world. In fact, all my local farmers are forever moaning at me about how outrageous it is that food is so low in price. As I say to them, the system has allowed them to continue farming, providing first-class food at a very low cost to consumers. It is that carefully balanced ecosystem that will be impacted by this juggernaut creation of the Government, which will raise, if it raises anything at all, very little. That is why it is great to have someone as thoughtful, insightful and empathetic as the Minister on the Government Bench, because we have time to change path away from this ridiculous policy.

My right hon. Friend is making a very clear case. Of course, there is massive agreement in the room. Does he recognise that with the uncertainty about the land use framework and the Government’s interventions and intentions on development of the work that we did on ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—farmers face massive uncertainty? Does he agree that it would be far better if the Government paused, as the NFU is asking, to look at this matter in the round, alongside the other policy decisions that they need to make—there is plenty of time before next spring—and, in particular, to address the issue about the age distribution of farmers? For younger farmers there will be ways of mitigating this matter and for older ones there simply are not. Overall, they lack clarity on what the future looks like, and that is a real concern.

At the very least, as my right hon. Friend says and as a colleague touched on earlier, tweaks could be made to this policy to stop the most egregious negative impact of it on people who have planned in good faith all their lives for a position and are now in no position whatever to change things. It is not just the elderly—everyone looks for the elderly person in their 80s or 90s to pass on, but I met another constituent whose mother died aged 41. These things happen, sadly, and what does that do to a farm? Is it holding hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank when there are 200 and something acres?

The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.

My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.

If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.

Does the right hon. Member share the concerns that my farmers have about their mental health, who are already in an industry where mental health issues are very high? They are concerned about the deadline of April 2026 and what impact that could have on their wellbeing.

I do. Someone only has to meet farmers to know that farming is already quite a lonely profession, with a high level of suicide anyway and high rates of depression. Combining that with this figure, it sounds hyperbolic to suggest that people will kill themselves ahead of this deadline, but knowing the farmers as I do in my area, I do not find it that hyperbolic. I hope it proves not to be the case, but it is a serious issue to be considered.

The impact of changes to BPR extends beyond farming communities. When asked about the changes, 85% of family businesses surveyed by the Confederation of British Industry said they would reduce investment by an average of 17%, an issue which colleagues are rightly raising. That will stifle long-term growth and harm the broader network of businesses that depend on them. They say that trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. As I walked down Whitehall, shoulder to shoulder with farmers, their anger was palpable because they had believed the Prime Minister’s promises yet were betrayed. To Labour’s credit, it won the trust of rural Britain, through every door knocked, leaflet printed and promise made. It went from representing two rural seats in 2019 to 40 today.

The Prime Minister pledged to form a new relationship with farmers based on respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) questioned where those proud rural Labour MPs are today; they are certainly not here facing the music. As usual, they are leaving the Minister to do it on his own. He asked us to judge his Government on their actions and not their words, so that is what we will do. In November 2023, the current Environment Secretary, in a room full of farmers, looked them straight in the eye and told them

“We have no intention of changing APR.”

By November 2024, that promise meant nothing. Labour waited 14 years to deliver its Budget, and it made a choice not just to change APR, but halve it. One constituent shared their shock as they calculated the impact, realising it would cost their family £300,000. Another constituent, William Hodgson, who runs a 600-acre farm near Withernsea with his mother, faces an inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million, with a post-tax profit of £150,000 a year. That means he would have to dedicate an entire decade of profits just to cover the cost of that tax. It was at that moment that the most valuable currency in politics—trust—was lost.

In February 2024, the Prime Minister told the NFU that it deserves a Government that listens and heeds early warnings. The planned changes to APR are not due until 2026, leaving the Prime Minister with one year, two fiscal events and ample parliamentary sitting days, with many colleagues all too happy to constructively work with him, to come to this House and tell us that he has listened and will change course. The question is whether he has the courage to do so.

It will have been hard to hear all of us and our chants while he was in Rio and we were in Whitehall; farmers at his north London surgeries will be few and far between. However, I hope he will listen to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), on his own side, who spoke bravely against the policy during the debate in the Chamber last month.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I had better make some progress. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway may have been scolded behind closed doors for doing that, but he will have regained the trust of voters who put their trust in him. As devastating as the proposed changes to APR and BPR could be on our farmers, the impact of the changes on family-owned businesses more widely could be even greater, and perhaps that deserves more attention.

A recent report by Adriana Curca at the CBI laid bare the potential fallout. Far from raising £1.4 billion, as forecast by the Treasury, the Chancellor can expect a £1.2 billion decrease in tax revenue from family-owned businesses. Instead of helping the Government to fulfil their pledge to be pro-business and pro-worker, it could lead to the loss of more than 125,000 jobs over the next four years.

Rachel from accounts obviously never got a new abacus for Christmas. Maple Garage, Beverley Travel, Beverley Camera Centre, Oh My Dog—great place—Flowerstyle, Vivienne Rose Wallpaper and Interiors, the Beverley Card Company, Islay Bloom, the Monkey Tree Café, Trent Galleries, Hull Aero Club—those are all businesses that I have spoken to since the Budget. The overwhelming sentiment was exactly the same, regardless of the type of business: disappointment in a Government who do not understand business. None of the Cabinet has ever run one, and it shows.

When the Prime Minister promised that wealth creation would be his party’s No. 1 priority—do hon. Members remember that?—more than 120 business leaders believed him, from the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, to Andrew Higginson, the chair of JD Sports. The Prime Minister convinced them that he had a plan to kick-start our economy. Now, six months into the reality of a Labour Government, they are lacing up their trainers and running for the hills.

It does not have to be that way. Instead of tinkering with who is and who is not eligible for inheritance tax relief, we could consider following Sweden’s example, where, having tried heavy inheritance tax charges—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will have to press on. Sweden ended up with even, I think, the communists voting to abolish it entirely. Since Sweden scrapped inheritance tax in 2004, entrepreneurship has flourished. Some 8,000 wealthy individuals moved their assets back to the country. Its tax revenues increased by £19.5 billion in a decade.

The planned changes to APR and BPR hurt everyone and help no one. Scrapping inheritance tax may not be a silver bullet, but the evidence suggests it is a policy worth examining.

I return to the saying that trust takes forever to repair. The Prime Minister will not take my word for it, but he should listen to his voters, and recent polls show that 66% of voters believe that Labour does not respect rural communities, and 77% do not trust Labour to manage the economy effectively, or remain unconvinced.

Newer MPs may grandstand and say that it will all blow over—although their appetite to do so seems to be diminishing by the day—and that by 2029, it will be a bad memory for farmers and entrepreneurs. Perhaps they could ask some of their colleagues in the Liberal Democrats how that story ends. After all, in 2010, it took them less than six months to break their promise to students not to raise tuition fees, and it still came up in last summer’s TV debates. Farmers and businessmen, like students, have long memories.

I am a firm believer that we reap what we sow. In the past six months, the Government have sown a dangerous thing—seeds of doubt, and an idea that they cannot be trusted. I had better let the Minister have a short period to respond. However, on behalf of colleagues right across this side of the House—and I think, by their absence, quite a number of colleagues on that side of the House—we ask the Minister, who is a thoughtful and decent man, to go back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and persuade them to change course.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.

I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way maybe once or twice, but I do not have much time.

I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?

I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.

The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.

It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.

Will the Minister give way?

I have only a few moments, so I will make progress.

The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that she would prioritise that tax break within the public finances, but we do not believe it is fair or sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of the wealthiest claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for those reasons that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant tax relief for estates, including for small farms and businesses, while repairing the public finances fairly.

Let me be clear that individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. On top of that, as we know, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Importantly, those reliefs sit on top of the existing spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. Depending on individual circumstances, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.

At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State suggested that farms should diversify to be more profitable, but diversification has become a lot less incentivised because that all gets wrapped up into the BPR, as well as the APR. Does that not completely negate the Secretary of State’s argument for diversification if it will all be taken away in tax?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about diversification, but whatever category the assets fall into, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax; that applies across agricultural and business property relief. The point I was making is that the agricultural and business property relief sit on top of the existing transfers and nil-rate bands, so when considering individual circumstances, we must look at the details of the situation that an individual or couple face.

I have a minute left, so I will be brief. Some hon. Members questioned the statistics about how many estates will be affected. We are very clear—we have published the data, and the Chancellor has written to the Treasury Committee about it—that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those claiming business property relief too, will be affected by these reforms to some degree. That means that about three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those also claiming business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these changes in the year they are introduced. All estates making claims through these reliefs will continue to receive generous support at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for securing this debate.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).