PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Family Farming in Devon - 3 December 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered family farming in Devon.

It is a great pleasure to have been able to secure a debate under your presidency, Sir Mark. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for attending.

With exquisite timing, the Conservative party has managed to list an Opposition day motion in the main Chamber tomorrow on exactly the same subject as this debate. Although I welcome that, I also welcome the opportunity of having the Minister much more up close and personal than is normally possible in the main Chamber for what I hope will be a relatively civilised debate—we do not always manage that in the main Chamber, perhaps, although one would hope we would. We are here to discuss not the general questions affecting the entire country in connection with farming, but questions most specific to Devon, although they share common themes and subjects.

I forget whether I have yet been able to induce the Minister to visit Devon, but we hope that he will do so in the new year because we are likely to have a Dartmoor forum, which he and I have already spoken about, in connection with an important development for the management of Dartmoor—the Fursdon review and its implementation. I will speak of those in due course.

To set the scene, in 2022 the economic output of farming in Devon was valued at £1.369 billion. More than 20,000 people are employed in farming in Devon on more than 1.2 million acres of farmland. By far the largest proportion of those acres are held and worked by modest-sized family farms of between two and 400 acres. No farming families in Devon continue in farming to grow rich; Devon’s farms are principally grazing livestock and dairy farms. They do it because it is a way of life, and because of the pride that they take in producing some of the finest food and produce on the planet.

Those families also do it because many, even most, of them have farmed in that place and within those communities for generations. The names of their forebears, engraved on the tombstones of their churches and chapels, bear witness to the continuity of which they are the stewards and custodians. It is that value, which is precious to the entire rural fabric of Devonshire, that I will speak of most acutely and strongly to the Minister.

There is a preciousness about farms, many of which have herds that may have been looked after and developed over dozens of years, sometimes even a century. There is all that cultivation and nurture and all those traditions that those farming families represent. Often a farm will support not simply one family, but several; I know of many surrounding my home. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—although I do not farm, I have farmland in Devon, and, depending on the vagaries of the sustainable farming incentive, I may well be a beneficiary of those schemes in a modest way. I tell that to the House and the Minister in candour before I start substantively.

I am familiar with my neighbours, my friends—those who farm near me, around me and throughout the whole of Torridge and Tavistock, which I have the honour to represent. As I have said, those farms sometimes sustain not just one family but several: there may be two or three brothers, with their families. Children on those farms may be hoping in due course to have the opportunity of farming themselves.

These people do not farm to grow rich; they farm for the reasons that I have given. But they also farm because they love that way of life—they have grown used to it, and know that they are following in the footsteps of their forebears. They farm because they are proud of the produce and the animals that they rear.

That is why there is a special value in farming families and family farms in Devon. True it is that the produce is the most important thing, of which they are most proud, but they also contribute to the fabric. The Minister would love to come to the rural shows—the Clovelly show, the Okehampton show, the Holsworthy show and all the shows that take place throughout the summer months in Devon. They are extraordinary events at which people—not just the farmers, but the ancillary trades that depend on them—get together. In a convivial setting they discuss their industry and trade and create the fabric of rural life, which is so precious.

Farm incomes have been falling. That is not a secret—the Minister will be well aware of the fact. From time to time, fortunately, farmgate prices have remained relatively buoyant, but average farm business income for the year 2023-24, to the end of February 2024, was lower for all farm types except specialist pig farms and specialist poultry farms. Almost all the farms in Devon, bar those relatively rare exceptions, saw falling average business income.

On dairy farms, following the two better years, when farmgate prices were relatively buoyant, average farm business income was 68% lower, with a fall in the farmgate price of milk being the primary driver. On lowland grazing livestock farms—beef, sheep—average farm business income fell by nearly a quarter, to £17,300. For grazing livestock farms in less favoured areas, higher fixed costs were only partially offset by an increase in output of £23,500, which was 12% lower.

From those falling incomes must be deducted the living of those who work the land. Those incomes do not take into account the unpaid labour of those who own or tenant those farms. Families who live on them—sometimes several families—must from that £17,300 or £23,500 take their own living. We can see that most people would not regard the figures we are speaking about, falling as they have been in the last year or more, as easy to live on, particularly for more than one person, for multiple families.

These farming families, of course, have to live with not only the hardness of their way of life but the unpredictability of the weather. They also, sadly, live with a different kind of unpredictability and a different kind of weather: the political weather. I would not be exaggerating if I said that these days those farmers in my constituency, and I suspect it is not much different in the rest of the county, probably regard the political weather as even more random and unpredictable than the actual weather itself.

I mean no party political point, because I accept entirely that the weather under successive Governments has always been relatively unpredictable, but recently the weather has achieved a combination that could be described, without too much poetic hyperbole, as a perfect storm. We have had the Budget’s accelerated cuts to the basic farm payment, the delinked payments. It is true that the progressive reduction to the basic payment was introduced in 2021. It is perfectly true that, across all farm types, the average net payment received in the reference year 2023-24 was approximately £18,300—but that was 21% lower than the year 2022-23. Nevertheless, that average of £18,300 still accounted on average for 40% of farm business income.

In the meantime, the environmental land management scheme, which includes the sustainable farming incentive, is not replacing the income lost to farms. Considerable progress was made this year to improve those schemes under the last Government, but, while across all farm types net income from agri-environment activities increased by an average of 14% to £10,600 on average, which is welcome, that is by no means sufficient to replace the 40% of farm business income that the basic farm payment still comprised in the year 2023-24.

As a result of this Budget, family farms will now experience a further 76% cut this year in the delinked or basic payment, with a cap of £7,200. For many families, that will represent a dramatic and unexpected reduction, for which farm businesses have been able to plan, and which will require readjustment and inevitable retrenchment of investment and employment. The payments will, of course —as they were always intended to—reduce progressively over the next three years, but farmers were entitled to believe that they would be reduced proportionately. Instead, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced them by 76% against the reference year, in a manner wholly unexpected to the industry.

Cumulatively, I will describe the additional problems that that has meant. There has been an inability to plan and an inability to adjust one’s cash flow. Halfway through potential investments on their farm, farmers find that the income they expected to have is not the income they will have. That is unhelpful. At the same time, the countryside stewardship higher tier scheme has been postponed, it is said possibly until mid-2025—I would invite the Minister to give us his view on when that scheme will be available.

The new, expanded sustainable farming incentive for 2024 does not appear to be readily available to all farmers, particularly to upland farmers, who have had so far very little access to that scheme. The countryside stewardship higher tier and the SFI 24, with the activities that are now coming onstream—or that will do, because I understand that some of the endorsed activities are still not ready—offered some prospect of mitigating the dramatic losses that the Budget has imposed, but the postponement has been a serious blow. Farmers are marooned in legacy schemes that are being extended in mirror agreements and cannot conceivably make up or mitigate the loss of direct payments that they are suffering because of the unexpected reductions.

The Ministry has also suddenly halted capital grants. The sudden closure of the capital grant applications has been a huge shock. Farmers are being asked to adopt measures to improve the environment, but have been left without access to the very grant schemes that would enable them to do so and help with their cash flow and their productivity. With applications timed specifically to fit in with the farming year and their enterprise activities, and no confirmation that all applications already in the system will progress, further uncertainty is caused to these businesses. Will the Minister comment on that?

I saw him, in his characteristically civil and polite way, gently shake his head. Nothing would more alight the hopes of those I represent than if that gentle shake of the head meant something—meant that we were wrong to say that the capital grants had been ceased and meant that all those writing to me and colleagues, asking what to do now, have been living in an unnecessary nightmare.

I implore the Minister, if that gentle shake of the head meant anything, to let us hear it now. Let us hear him boldly strike out and say, “The capital grants will be resumed. They will not be postponed or delayed to 2025. Some relief is available to those who desperately need it.” Because they—the farming families of whom I speak—will also be affected by the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, and by the various measures, some quite small, that the Budget took in connection with those who pursue family farming.

In the meantime, like a slow and steady drumbeat gathering force, behind the ever more implausible rhetoric of support, they see and hear the concrete commitments of this Government. They witness the Government in action, not in words. They see how the Prime Minister at COP29 committed himself to a climate change target—a perfectly reasonable thing, some may argue, but the Climate Change Committee has told him that in committing to that target he will need to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy products by 20% over the coming five years.

These are the signs of the political weather, and so are the small measures—the small signs that, beyond the talk, indicate the revealed preferences and priorities of a Government. It is not about what the Prime Minister says when he stands at the podium and speaks to the National Farmers Union; we have already learned that we cannot trust that. What we realise, and what those listening today have begun to realise, is that it is in the small as well as the large measures that the Government are revealing their visceral and real preferences and priorities.

The small things include the reclassification of double-cab pick-up trucks. That might even have been missed in the Budget. Squirrelled away in the small print was a lancet aimed straight at hundreds of farming families in Devon, many of whom have a double-cab pick-up truck. Now, that is no longer deductible: it is not to be treated as a business expense simply because it has a back seat, when for years it has been so treated by the Revenue. The small measures reveal the real preferences and priorities of a Government. It is not the words, the rhetoric or the talk; it is what they do by which they are judged.

Of course, all those measures are outweighed by far by the subject that tomorrow’s debate will no doubt cover: agricultural and business property relief. The Government’s figures on the policy have now been widely discredited. The £1 million cap is not only on agricultural property relief but on business property relief. Both reliefs are used when a farm is passed to the next generation. As agricultural land prices have increased, a 200-acre farm, let alone a 400-acre farm, will almost certainly have a capital value, on the land alone, of more than £2 million. That same land often sustains multiple families—the brothers, the sisters and the cousins, all of whom farm that land—and from that exiguous amount of £17,300, or £23,500 in an upland area, they all have to take their living, provide for their children, pay for their energy and so on.

These farms are not wealthy; they are, as is so often said, asset-rich but income-poor. The Government say that the relief is doubled for a couple. However, bear in mind that a farm will have not just the land but other business assets, equipment and livestock, all of which require the business property relief to be deployed. And the business property relief, combined with the agricultural property relief, is now capped at £1 million.

As I said, the Government say the relief is doubled for a couple. But what about the 46% of farms that are owned by a single owner? If, for example, someone’s spouse has already died, they cannot inherit the allowance from their deceased husband or wife. The 46% of single owners of farms will receive no double relief—only the £1 million.

I say to the Minister that what is particularly wrong about this situation is—

Order. I understand that there is a Division in the House, so the sitting is suspended for 15 minutes. We will add that time on at the end—do not worry.

Order. As everybody has returned, we can restart a little bit earlier than we had planned. I call Sir Geoffrey Cox.

I was dealing with the impact the changes agricultural property and business property relief will have on farming families, although that will be debated in greater and finer detail tomorrow.

Just this morning I was written to by a farmer in my constituency. She lives in Sheepwash in Torridge in Devon. I hope she will forgive me for mentioning her age, because she is 86. She has a dairy farm, milking 250 cows. As she says herself, the cows may well be worth £400,000, the young stock another £250,000, machinery perhaps £250,000 and the farm buildings—into which investment, toil and effort have been poured by those who have worked that farm for generations—worth perhaps £1 million in themselves.

The farm may have a dairy parlour. It may be automated. It may well be able to milk 250 cows, or these days even more. One can see the cows going round on the carousel—I am sure the Minister has seen them, but I can show him these carousels in my constituency. The cows come in, they get on to the carousel, they go round, they come off the other side and they are milked. Those automated parlours are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. All that would need to be offset against business property relief, which has now been capped not only for the value of those buildings and those business assets, but for the land, which is 400 acres.

To sell 20% of the herd to pay inheritance tax will, as my constituent suggests, not only severely deplete the profitability of a business that already operates on the wafer-thin margins of which we have spoken today, but cripple herds that have sometimes had lavished upon them 100 years of husbandry. They are closed herds, some of them; animals prized for their pedigrees and their quality, and prize-winning at the local shows of which I have already spoken and to which I have drawn the Minister’s attention.

But what she says next is the most compelling: she says, “At my age, I have very little time to plan. Even if I could give the farm away and survive the seven years that were necessary, I can’t, because I still need to retain a modest income from the business because my pension provision itself is modest. Taking out life insurance at the age of 86? Well, that is a non-starter. These changes and the implications for my family greatly worry me.” That is an understatement. Older farmers’ health and wellbeing are seriously at risk as we come to see ourselves as an impediment to successfully passing on the farm to the future generation, preserved for their generation to cultivate, to nurture, and to develop.

It is not so much the cap—although the cap is bad enough—as the complete failure of the Government to assess the impact on the basis of accurate figures. The Treasury figures are now widely discredited and different, as we know, from the Minister’s own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is a complete failure to work out the impact it will have not only on businesses, but on people; a failure to consult them and to understand how these measures will impact the rural communities I have the precious honour of representing and speaking for this afternoon.

There is no time for those people to plan, and that makes them feel—up and down the length of this country and throughout the towns and villages of Devon—that they may be the impediment to the next generation. The same holds for the dramatic and unexpected cuts in the delinked payments: there was no income assessment, no consultation—it was all sudden. It is those small details, as is so often the case, that reveal the real preferences and priorities of the Government.

I want to talk about bovine tuberculosis. When I was first elected, that disease ran riot throughout the countryside of Devon. West Devon, Torridge, and parts of north Devon were some of the most densely infected areas in the country. For years, we banged our head on the brick wall of policy made by a previous Labour Government to get people to understand that the wildlife reservoir must be controlled. It was one instrument among the many that were unquestionably needed, including biosecurity, the development of vaccination and all those instruments, but we could not arbitrarily exclude the instrument of controlling the wildlife.

In the hills and fields of Devonshire I have watched badgers run between the legs of the cattle. One tiny, infinitesimal measurement of badger urine can create the bovine TB disease in cattle. It is impossible to prevent the infected wildlife reservoir in badgers, and for that matter in deer, from infecting the cattle, and it is widely understood by the veterinary community in Devonshire that wildlife is a vector in the disease. I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition Government, because it took moral and political courage finally in 2010 to agree, alongside the Conservatives, to introduce that single instrument that the Labour Government had declined to introduce for all those years.

I remember bringing the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) down to the village of Clawton on the borders of Cornwall and sitting him alongside 15 or 20 farmers to hear their experiences. Although he was, like this Minister, civil, urbane, courteous, mild, kind and polite as ever, he was implacable in his refusal to adopt the rational proposal being made to him by those farmers that targeted control of wildlife was necessary, and that in the end all wildlife must be controlled.

In Torridge and Tavistock that control has led to a 55% reduction in herd breakdowns. The chief vet says that it has been a causative factor in the downward trajectory of the disease. I applaud the Minister for announcing the refreshment of the bovine eradication strategy, and for announcing that there will be no immediate cessation of that important instrument. It is an instrument that must be used judiciously, and only as part of a wider group of instruments designed to bear down on the disease, but it cannot be excluded.

In the first five years of my election to this place I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that wrote the report that set the scene for the policy that the coalition Government introduced. My worry is that the refresh will prejudge the outcome. It has been already announced that the instrument will cease to be used at the end of this Parliament. That sounds like prejudging; it does not sound like evidence-led political decision making. It sounds like an ideological decision, not an evidenced one, when even the chief vet accepts that the instrument has been a contributory factor in the downward trajectory of the disease.

In my constituency, and I suspect in those of others in the Chamber, the instrument has unquestionably led to a dramatic fall in the incidence of the disease—a 55% reduction. I recall vividly that I could walk from one end of my constituency to the other on infected farms under restrictions. It is now quite impossible to do that, which is significant progress. There is a human impact of bovine TB. We do not need pyres 200 feet tall—as there were in Devon with foot and mouth disease—

Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Member that there are others who may wish to speak and, unless he winds up his remarks fairly soon, they are not going to have much time.

I will indeed, Sir Mark. We do not need pyres 200 feet tall to see the invisible toll of carnage that cattle slaughter after bovine TB entails. I urge the Minister to remain open minded.

Finally, I come to the Fursdon review. I know the Minister understands that none of my remarks are intended to be personal—on the contrary; he is a reasonable interlocutor with whom it is always a pleasure to deal, and who has always consulted on matters of constituency and other regional importance. The Fursdon review is one such matter. I urge him to implement its recommendations in full. The review was superbly conducted and has been an extraordinarily valuable exercise in how light can be brought to difficult situations.

I applaud the appointment of the chairman of the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group and thank the Minister for that—that is good. I invite him to come to Tavistock for the next Dartmoor forum, where we have several hundred attending: the NFU, Devon Wildlife Trust and all the environmental groups will come. It is an important moment when the actors, the players and those involved on Dartmoor can see how this Government are as engaged as the last Government were in finding solutions to the uplands problem on the moor.

I conclude with this plea: if it was not an intentional weather creation, leading farmers up and down the country and throughout Devon to believe that this Government have no interest, no regard and no care and are in fact callous and indifferent to their welfare and fate, it is up to the Minister today and henceforth to change that weather by sending the correct signals. I have to say he will have a hard job and an uphill battle to persuade them after the inheritance tax relief and the other measures of which I have spoken, but if anybody in this Government can do it, it is the Minister. I hope he will, and I wish him success in doing so.

I indicate that, because of the limitations of this debate, each Back Bencher should aim to speak for around five minutes, if possible.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Mark. I first of all thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for introducing the debate.

I am conscious of the key issues that affect farmers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, one of which is food security. I will refer to inheritance tax on family farms, but first I want to say that food security is important, because we need to be able to feed our people. For that, we need to have farms that are viable and farmers who are working.

The similarities between Devon and Strangford—indeed, across this great United Kingdom—are real. Farming is the same, no matter the number of acres. Farms in Devon are bigger than the farms back home, but none the less, the issues are the same. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to the fact that, for those people who understand farming and who have lived farming all their life, such as my farmers and neighbours, farming the land is more than just farming the land; it is their very lifeblood.

I declare an interest: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is a sister organisation of the NFU, and I am the holder of a family farm. I highlight the fact that my holdings are among the very few that will fall, slightly, under the threshold—for this generation at least—and I speak wholly on behalf of those who have contacted me from across this great United Kingdom to speak about this “discounted” inheritance tax. Falling revenues and profits are ploughed back into farms. Farms are very clearly asset rich but pound poor, and the inheritance tax changes will impact farmers.

I know the Minister; he is a decent man, and I mean that genuinely. There is not one of us in this room who does not see him as a friend, but the fact is that these proposals are alien and they will affect farms across this great United Kingdom. Many farmers tell me that the best option in response to this 20% tax is to sell their land—that would lessen production, which we need to feed this great nation—and that, even with future planning, their farm would have less land with which to attempt to make enough money to ensure that there is cash available for their sons to take over the farm. The vicious circle starts again. The changes to national insurance contributions impacts all businesses, whether they are farmers or other small businesses.

I was talking to two food-producing farmers back home the week before last. The point they made was clear: the changes to national insurance contributions will impact each farm and each business, and prices will go up. Who ultimately falls for the national insurance contributions? The ordinary man in the street. It affects everyone, not just the farmers themselves. The farmers told me that we will see a 15% to 20% increase in food prices—that is an indication of just how important this is.

Another farmer told me that his farm consisted of two holdings, which two brothers manage. These men are still farming in their 70s. We should think of the impact on them. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to that. Whether it is a single person or a duo working on the farm, they will have to pay the cost. The sons of both men have said that there is no point continuing with the farm because, even though they have a job outside, the impact on them will be great. The fact is that small farm holdings, whether in Devon, Strangford or anywhere else in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will be impacted greatly by what the Government are introducing. In Northern Ireland, we obviously have other important issues, but they are not for this debate—I will save them until tomorrow.

I have a meeting next Monday with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss the very issues before us. We will discuss in detail the impact on Northern Ireland, where 70% of farmers will be clearly impacted by the inheritance tax. When they sell off assets they sell premises or a family farm, and in a short space of time the result will be that every child in this country will depend on imports for food security. This cannot be. I stand with hon. Members here in begging for a rethink. We are not selling family silver—we are selling plots of potatoes, and without a harvest, we will all bear the brunt.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark.

I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) who, I feel, could probably have spoken on this subject for another half an hour, with plenty more to add. He is a landowner himself, so we note his experience.

I will highlight the plight of people in mid and east Devon whom I represent and who are feeling a great deal of uncertainty about the future. I will do so by giving a couple of examples. The first example is of a family farm near Cullompton. I will read directly from the letter that family sent me, because their words are quite touching:

“We have been farming within a 5-mile radius of here for over 400 years. Unfortunately the family had to sell the farm…in the 1860s at the start of the Great Agricultural Depression. It has taken us 150 years to regain ownership of a farm and now the inheritance tax issue threatens us with the risk of losing it again.”

That illustrates that we are not talking here about some short-term business enterprise that starts up and fades, as if it were some sort of digital business. This is a farm that has provided a livelihood for generations of people. It is not about capital or assets; it is about the hard graft of the people who do it.

The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to the legacy of the previous Government and that legacy is worth examining. The cuts to the basic payment were one aspect of that. Another aspect was the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, which the Government’s own figures found had cost British farming £94 million. The proposed change to inheritance tax is but one more thing on top of all the other things that have given farmers a really torrid time in recent years.

I appeal to the Minister when he responds to the debate to take a look at this. We are talking about a Treasury benefit of perhaps £500 million in a Budget of £40 billion of new taxes. The sum involved is a small sum for the Treasury in Whitehall, but it will have an enormous impact in the countryside.

I will give another example: the Derryman family, including Peter, his brother, and now his son. In many ways, they are emblematic of the sort of people from mid and east Devon whom I represent. They represent thousands of farming families who work really hard, grafting day and night, contributing to the local society and local economy in Stockland. However, they are very concerned. They only own 120 acres, so people might suppose that they would not be subject to a tax that is proposed on only the first £1 million of combined farm and business assets. However, when we look at the value of the farmhouse, the machinery, the land and livestock, it all adds up to a potential inheritance tax liability.

The Government claim that 73% of farms will not be affected, yet the NFU claims that seven in 10 farms will be; those figures cannot both be right. On 19 November, I was lobbied by people I represent, who asked me to say to the Minister that we should seek to discriminate between the genuine farmers and the hobby farmers. We know that there has been a tendency to use land as an inheritance tax dodge, but the genuine farmers who spent the day in London—it is very unusual for them to put down their tools and come here—said that there has to be a way to discriminate between those who have bought a few cows as a tax dodge and those who earn their living from the land.

The reality is that these people are working unsociable hours, they are physically exhausted, and some have been plagued by mental health issues. Constituents have told me that this tax is cruel, because there are only 17 months until it is introduced in 2026; people are reflecting on what they might have to do to dodge or avoid that tax before it is introduced.

We are not allowed to use props in this debate, but I have a photo that was given to me by Peter Derryman. It is of his young granddaughter with a prized lamb at a show in Devon. I would say to the Minister: whatever the technicalities, this is a matter of the heart.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate. I grew up on a family farm in Devon, very near where he lives, and as a vet I have attended and been on duty for many of the agricultural shows he mentioned. If he has not yet been to the Chagford sheep-shearing competition, I definitely recommend it, and I extend an invitation to him to the fantastic Alresford agricultural show near Winchester, which has been going on there for over 120 years.

All of today’s speeches touch on the fact that farming is not merely a business; rather, the rural community is based on family farms. Those farms are not just farming and producing food; they also provide the governors for the local schools and do charity work. We need to keep family farms farming to ensure that the entire fabric of our rural communities survives and thrives into the next century.

Farming is a tough life. It is one of those professions: farmers can work all hours, in all weathers, and then—due to reasons completely out of their control—realise that they are either going to make money or lose a huge amount of money. Losses can be due to weather conditions, such as droughts and floods; disease outbreaks, like foot and mouth, bluetongue or avian influenza; or political events, as other Members have touched on, including trade deals. Farmers can do everything right in one year but, because of reasons completely out of their control, realise that they will struggle to make a profit and could make a significant loss.

The subject of mental health issues in rural communities has been well recognised, and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Farmers who are dealing with uncertainty do struggle, and there is a high suicide rate among them. We have to remember that farms are not just businesses, but individuals and families who are directly affected by decisions made in this House.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) touched on how beautiful the Devon countryside is. The Lake district, the Yorkshire dales, the shires in Devon, and the beautiful countryside in Hampshire around the Meon valley only look the way they do because they have been farmed for generations. Those are curated landscapes, created and cared for by generations of custodians. Although farmers might not make a direct profit from tourism, the only reason we have a booming tourism industry is because we have such landscapes. Their contribution should be recognised for the huge amount of GDP generated by foreign visitors coming to look at our green and pleasant land.

Earlier today, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on food security, which included a discussion on illegal meat imports coming in through Dover. We heard about how the Dover Port Health Authority, Border Force and DEFRA struggle for resources. When they do spot checks on lorries bringing in products, they regularly pick up tonnes of illegally imported meat. That is a public health concern, because we do not know the origin of the meat or the standard it was produced to, and it is often not refrigerated.

Many of the lorries come from eastern Europe, where there are notifiable diseases of livestock, such as foot and mouth and peste des petits ruminants, that we do not see in the UK. That is a huge risk to agricultural livestock production and farming in the UK. I ask the Minister: how can we better resource our border and biosecurity? I am fully aware that that would cost a huge amount in money and resources, but it is much more cost-effective to prevent foot and mouth or similar diseases than to deal with an outbreak. That is a hugely concerning situation to be in.

Farmers and vets are hugely proud that we have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards in farming in the world. They were hugely disappointed when the previous Government—

Order. The time is up. I remind the hon. Member, who is new, that if he is not here at the start in future, he will not be called to speak. We now move to contributions from the Front Bench.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate, and for his lyrical introduction to the subject. It is clear from all hon. Members who have contributed that much is at stake for our rural economy.

In Devon, family farms are an essential part of our community and the economy, as they are elsewhere—I refer to the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who talked of their areas. In Devon, farms cover 1.2 million acres of land and employ more than 20,000 people. Agriculture is the backbone of our local economy. From grazing livestock to growing crops, Devon’s farmers produce not just food but the character of our rural landscape.

The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock spoke of the preciousness of our farms and the decades of heritage, of which we are rightly proud. However, the Government’s changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief are concerning. The Government claim that 73% of farms will be unaffected by the changes, but as the NFU has pointed out, those figures are based on historical claims and fail to account for the current state of the agricultural sector. For example, 66% of farms in England have a net value of more than £1 million, and 42% of farms are larger than 50 acres, so many will now be above the £1 million threshold.

The burden that that will place on farmers cannot be overstated, especially given the other financial pressures that they have faced over the past few years. They are struggling with skyrocketing costs, since energy and feed prices have risen due to the invasion of Ukraine. Many are still reeling from the Conservatives’ botched trade deals, which have placed further stress on the farming community. The recent increase in national insurance contributions and the impending carbon tax on fertiliser further compounds the challenges. I will read some quotations from local farmers who we surveyed, 86% of whom say they will be hit by the tax, while 50% of those farms are not owned by a couple, so they already lose out on a chunk of the potential tax relief:

“We are now in process of winding down all investment and food production on this farm in response to the budget. Producing food is difficult and carries lots of financial risk—we will keep farming but at a much lower level and look to pass the farm on early as lifetime transfer. Doesn’t sound like ‘growth’ to me…Our farming income for the last 2 financial years has been a loss (mainly due to weather). It feels so hard. This policy just knocks the confidence out…The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation…If this rule stays what is the point of investing in your farm to improve efficiency. All our input costs are going to increase through labour costs and taxes…Through previous governments, we’ve been encouraged to diversify in order to augment our farm income and stay afloat. Now we feel we’ll be penalised for this as we have added value to our farm which will now be liable for Inheritance tax…I feel completely let down and saddened. This will completely destroy the rural community.”

Farmers will be forced to sell land—the very tool by which they produce food and earn a living—that has been in their families for generations—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but every single farmer I have spoken to says that that is the case. The idea that neighbouring or tenant farmers will just buy up the land is a fantasy. Most will not be able to afford it, and land may well end up being bought by non-farming companies with no interest in food production and used instead for carbon offsetting or potential development.

One family now face the prospect of having to sell at least a quarter of their assets, including tractors, sheep and land, just to pay the tax. They tell me that, rather than investing and growing their business, they are now having to wind down their farm with a view to reducing their future tax liabilities. That is a deeply worrying trend, as it could lead to a broad contraction of the sector, harming not just farmers but the entire agricultural industry. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: the tax will disproportionately harm the farming community, and we call for the Government to rethink it.

But it is not just farmers. The impact on rural businesses that rely on the farming economy, such as vets, agricultural merchants and machinery suppliers, will be severe. Local suppliers of agricultural machinery and heavy equipment already face a significant increase in costs due to national insurance changes. Those businesses are vital to the farming economy. Again, a contraction of the sector will have a ripple effect throughout the entire rural economy.

It is crucial to note that the DEFRA budget for day-to-day spending is set to drop by 1.9% over the next two years, and the pause on capital grants is yet another worry, particularly for farmers who are doing their best to comply with environmental measures such as safe slurry storage. If the grants are not available to do that work, that makes sustainable farming even harder to achieve.

The sustainable farming incentive, which should provide support to farmers, has proven unworkable for many, and the transition from basic payments to ELMs has been complicated and unnecessarily slow—an indication of the lack of foresight and planning by the previous Government to prepare for a potential withdrawal from the EU. Even though I am no fan of Brexit, what could have given a real boost to both British agriculture and the environment has instead been a bureaucratic mess and a clear sign of how rural communities are so often the lowest priority for Government.

Talking of environmental payments, I want to take a quick moment to underline how important it is for the Government to make the schemes work. Unless we restore the health of our soils and the biodiversity that has been decimated across the UK, our farmers will find it harder and harder to produce quality food. If we are to mitigate flooding, increase water quality and combat carbon emissions, we simply must do this work. As the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) have mentioned, that is really important on Dartmoor, a small part of which also falls in my constituency. This will mean a complex conversation about farming, stocking levels and sites of special scientific interest. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to find solutions.

Environmental payments are fundamental to the future of good food production. Lower inputs are good for everyone—for nature and the farmer’s back pocket. It is not an either/or—farming or the environment. We simply have to make this work.

Finally, I share something deeply troubling, which I heard from farmers in my constituency when they came to Westminster last week. Some talked about the need to hide shotguns in order to prevent older owners of the family farm from taking their own lives before the inheritance tax changes come into force. They now feel that they are worth more dead than alive because of the burden those taxes would place on their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also touched on that topic. We know that poor mental health is already rife in the farming community, and the sudden tax change has placed an added pressure, which could prove fatal. No farmer should ever feel that their legacy and livelihood are so threatened that it would drive them to such despair.

In response to those challenges, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a £1 billion increase in the farming budget, and for the Government to reverse their decision on agricultural property relief. We understand the importance of ensuring that family farms can continue to operate and thrive. Family farms are not only vital for our food security and the preservation of our rural environment, but central to the history and heritage of our country. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the future of family farming, to ensure that our rural communities thrive, and to ensure that farmers’ voices are heard loud and clear in Westminster.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) on securing this important debate.

Devon is one of the farming heartlands of England. The rolling fields, so familiar to tourists and locals, are dutifully managed by Devon’s family farmers, over generations upon generations, producing the highest quality of produce. The county is renowned for the diversity of its farming, with a strong mix of dairy, beef and sheep, with some arable, accompanied by many a farm diversification.

Despite that, across the whole of the south-west, the average farm income is approximately £30,000 lower than the national average. It is vital, therefore, that the Government support those farms and family farmers to continue to deliver high-quality food produce, and to maintain our countryside for the future.

A subject on which the Government and I can find common ground is the money released via the Budget to improve the biosecurity facilities in Weybridge, which will help combat the challenges posed by bluetongue and other diseases. It is vital for farmers in Devon and across the country that we tackle any diseases and their threats early, not only to protect livestock, but to prevent costs spiralling out of control as a result of a fully-fledged outbreak.

Unfortunately, that is where the common ground ends. Since the Budget, the Government have chosen to levy a series of shattering changes on farmers, creating uncertainty. There has also been a failure to raise the overall farming budget, amounting to a real-terms cut in funding.

The rapid and unexpected delinking of payments from the basic payment scheme will see huge drops in the money received by farming businesses as soon as next year. For many farms, that change in their financial forecasting will be devastating, with long-term plans scuppered as Government support is pulled out from underneath them.

Likewise, we are still waiting for the Government to outline their transition process from legacy higher level stewardship—HLS—schemes. Although those schemes have been extended by a year, many farmers are still unable to look beyond that term as they do not know what the Government will expect of them as they move towards the sustainable farming incentive. Indeed, many farmers I have spoken to are deeply frustrated that the equivalent SFI options to HLS options have higher payment rates, yet the Labour Government have made a choice not to allow those locked into HLS agreements the ability to easily transfer into the equivalent SFI.

Just last week, we heard of the sudden closure of capital grant schemes, causing deep frustration and confusion to many applicants. Let us not forget that capital grant funds for farmers aimed to deliver environmental outcomes, not just improve business efficiency. However, that funding has been slashed. Farmers and growers are being asked to adapt, and to adopt measures to improve the environment, but they have been left in the lurch by the Labour Government, without having access to important grant schemes that would enable them to do just that.

Only a month ago, we were shocked to hear plans to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments. Yet, just last week, we heard the decision by the Government to remove capital grants. How on earth is a farming business able to forecast its plans with certainty? There are also the increased direct costs expected, such as the carbon tax on fertiliser, which is estimated to increase the cost of fertiliser by £50 a tonne and will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the cost of food and consequentially inflate food prices. Then, in the Budget, we heard of the increase in employers’ national insurance, coupled with the reduction in the associated threshold, an increase in the minimum wage, the double cab pickup tax—I could go on.

Of course, the biggest impact on our Devonshire farmers and on farmers across the country will be Labour’s family farm tax. The average size of a farm in the south-west is around 200 acres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly outlined the points raised by his constituent who is a dairy farmer. If we take the size of a dairy business coupled with the value associated with the farmland—400 acres was mentioned—the cost and value of the dairy cows, machinery and feedstocks, not to mention the value of the farmhouse and farm buildings, and perhaps any farm diversification project that has been taken into account, we will almost certainly be over and above the cap of £1 million that this Labour Government have chosen to put in place. That applies to both agricultural property relief and business property relief.

As I alluded to, farms in the south-west are even more cash-strapped than the national average. For the many farmers across Devon, the only option under this Labour Government’s implementation of their family farm tax will be to sell assets. But what assets do they sell? Put simply, the combined assault from all measures within the Budget will be fatal for many farms right across the country. That is why the Conservatives want to see this tax reversed. We have forced a vote on that very issue on the Floor of the House tomorrow.

Unsurprisingly, not one Labour MP has contributed to this debate. I only hope that Labour MPs, and indeed this Labour Government, are listening to our British farmers and their constituents, who have raised these concerns time and time again since the Budget. That is why we pledged earlier this year to uprate and broaden the offering of SFI options. But we have heard from many farmers throughout the country that they are unable to get into those new options at the speed at which the previous Conservative Administration—and, it seems, the new Labour Administration—have been giving them out. I can only conclude that the Rural Payments Agency is acting slowly to create an underspend next year for the spending review, to see a slash in the farming budget next year. I hope that is not the case; maybe the Minister will be able to allude to the Government’s intentions.

I know for a fact that many of Devon’s stalwart farmers were alongside not only myself but my colleagues, in Whitehall just a couple of weeks ago, to protest against this Government’s shameful offering to farmers. I just hope that the Government were listening to their fury and their distress, and that they have listened to the comments that by Members from all Opposition parties in this debate, because it matters. The implications for health and wellbeing matter, and the mental health strain that has been put on our farming community matters. So I say to the Minister: listen carefully to what is being said to you; listen to the professional advisers out there. I only hope that you will change course imminently.

It is always a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for bringing this debate in his characteristically forceful way. He seduces; he charms; he flatters. I particularly enjoyed his account of the centuries it has taken to produce the wonderful farms we see in Devon—centuries, of course, that preceded the current agricultural property relief regulations. I also enjoyed his account of the weather that the previous Government created, which left the farming sector in such a parlous state for the new Government to inherit. But he also encouraged me to visit Devon, and I can tell him that, actually, within my first 10 days of being appointed as Minister I had made my way to Devon, as I had done in opposition on a number of occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

However, I also frequently heard from local people that they were concerned about others coming to buy up land over the top of local people. I suspect that we can share our concerns on some of these issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referenced the excellent debate that he secured in this Chamber last year on the future of Dartmoor, which I will come on to.

Many important points have been raised, and I have listened carefully to all the thoughtful contributions. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I will go away and look carefully at her points about the moorland stocking rates, which I know my officials are looking at closely, and how they affect Greenwell farm. I always listen closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also made important points. I was struck by the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), particularly around border controls. I remind him that one of the first things we did was to strengthen those controls, so I very much agree with him about threats at the borders.

We absolutely recognise that the farming sector is vital. Family farms are crucial: they produce our food, steward the environment and look after nature. We are all indebted to farmers across this country for doing that, and we all recognise the stresses and strains, the mental health challenges, which the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, and the pressures from the weather and from disease in the last few years. That is why this Government are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years—the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and the recovery of nature in our country’s history. That should send a powerful message to farmers about the value we place on all that they do. Within that, we have committed £1.8 billion for environmental land management schemes, delivering improvements to food security and biodiversity, tackling carbon emissions and improving water quality, air quality and flood resilience.

I will address the point about basic payments made at the beginning by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock. He is right: we are accelerating the end of the era of payouts to landowners simply for owning land, and the fastest reductions in subsidies will be for those who have historically received the largest payments. For example, it is true that the 4% who received more than £100,000 in subsidies in 2020 will receive no more than £8,000 in 2025, whereas the majority of farmers who receive less than £10,000 to start with will see a gradual reduction in their delinked payments, but they will all have access to ongoing funding through SFI and other schemes. That is the key point. We are speeding up that vital transition, which I fully recognise the previous Government set about initially, to get to a better place in terms of the environment.

The issue of capital grants is interesting, because I must tell the Opposition that there is no magic money tree. The reason why the capital grants have stopped is that they are oversubscribed. We have seen an unprecedented demand this autumn. The Rural Payments Agency received more applications for capital grants from May to November 2024 than over the whole of the 2023-24 financial year. They are also worth more—as of November ’24, the standalone capital grant applications were up by 45% compared with the whole of the last financial year. This is a basic problem that we inherited: there is no management of public funds. That is the core problem that the whole of Government faces with our inheritance from the Conservatives, and we will deal with those points.

I turn to the Dartmoor issues, which the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly raised. On 29 October, we appointed Phil Stocker to chair the new Dartmoor Land Use Management Group, which was one of the central recommendations of the Fursdon review. We are moving forward with David Fursdon’s recommendations to create a long-term plan for land use that preserves the cultural heritage of the area, recovers nature and boosts food production. The group will provide a space for stakeholders to discuss important issues and work to strike the right balance between food security and preserving the diversity and abundance of nature in the area. Mr Stocker will be responsible for steering the group to meet its aims and objectives, and one of his first tasks will be to identify and appoint members who bring the necessary knowledge, expertise and engagement to the group. That process is under way, and we expect the first meeting to take place shortly. I absolutely hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s invitation, and at an appropriate point I will, I hope, visit and constructively support the work being done.

I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman met officials from Natural England in October for an update on progress implementing the Fursdon review. We have been in discussions since I took up the role, and we wish the whole process well.

I will turn to the agricultural property relief issue—a well-rehearsed debate that will continue in the main Chamber tomorrow. I will repeat the points that I have made before. We are confident that the changes are proportionate and that smaller farms will be protected. Those above the threshold will have 10 years to pay the tax, with zero interest incurred. No one is doubting that it was a difficult decision, but the truth is that the economic situation that the Government inherited has required us to make tough choices. I reassure Members that based on the figures we have, which are the only ones we can go on—actual claims on estates—we reiterate our point: we feel that the vast majority of people will be not be affected.

On that point, will the Minister confirm whether, when the Government brought in the £1 million cap, they took into account the size of farming units in any analysis on its impact on future IHT claimants?

That will be debated further. On our side, the debate will be led by Treasury Ministers who are in a better position to answer those kinds of questions. However, the complexity and the different range of set-ups and structures that family businesses have makes it difficult to make that assessment. The hon. Gentleman will know that when it comes to legislation, there will be a full assessment and we can look into those details then. I stand by the figures that the Treasury has given us. We expect that the changes will affect only around 500 claims for agricultural property relief in 2026-27, so we believe it is a fair and balanced approach.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Treasury consulted DEFRA on the tax change before deciding to go ahead with it in the Budget.

The hon. Lady will know that we are one Government and we stand together. Going forward, we are picking up the mess that we inherited, and that is the problem we face. On each of these issues in turn, we have to answer the basic question: who will fix the economic mess? The answer is this Government.

Will the Minister indulge me one more time?

Just once more.

Only because I will not have the opportunity to raise this point at the Dispatch Box tomorrow if a Treasury Minister is responding. Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong? When the Government introduced the £1 million cap, they did not look at the size of family farms that will be impacted. Surely they do not understand the value of an estate on death if they have not looked at the size of it, therefore how can they understand correctly the number of claimants who will be impacted?

We can, because we simply look at the number of claims that have been made in the last few years. That is how we arrive at that conclusion.

The figures that the Treasury published simply deal with the use of agricultural property relief. What they do not show is how many farms had already used their business property relief before needing to rely on agricultural property relief. They do not take into account the fact that it is not just APR, but BPR, being capped.

I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the letter that the Chancellor sent to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which goes into the issue in some detail. It says:

“Currently, of the population of affected estates that claim both APR and BPR, almost a quarter of claims include a claim for”

shares on the alternative investment market. That begins to show the complexity and that the situation is not always as it seems.

I will move on to the double-cab pick-up tax. As I suspect the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that was based on a legal judgment by the courts. We respect that judgment, as I am sure he would wish us to. We are also saying, generously, that it will not affect the capital allowances treatment of anyone who already owns a double-cab pick-up. Anyone already leasing a double-cab pick-up from their employer as a benefit in kind will have until April 2029, or their lease expires, before these changes affect them.

I am conscious of the time, so I will just touch on bovine tuberculosis—a hugely important issue that of course has caused huge cost and huge suffering for many farmers. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have started work on a new bovine TB eradication strategy. The key part of that is pushing much more swiftly on developing a cattle vaccine, which I genuinely think will be the ultimate answer to this very difficult problem, and it very much builds on the evidence and conclusions of Sir Charles Godfray’s 2018 independent review. Alongside that, we will do the first badger population survey in more than a decade, develop a new national wildlife surveillance programme and establish a new badger vaccinator field force. I genuinely think that we can work together on eliminating the scourge of bovine TB.

I conclude by thanking all hon. Members for what has been an informative debate. It is always good to talk about what is happening in Devon. Let me reassure the House that I am absolutely committed, as are the Government, to a strong future for family farms and food producers across the country. I am sure we will be continuing the debate.

I call Sir Geoffrey Cox to wind up.

Thank you, Sir Mark; I can be quite concise. May I, through you, thank the Minister for, as ever, the polite, civil and gentle way in which he treats the inevitable criticism coming from the Opposition side of the Chamber? Some of it is justified, and no doubt some, he thinks, is unjustified. I have to say I found his responses on the inheritance tax changes pretty thin, but no doubt we will hear tomorrow from the Treasury Ministers as they stand up for themselves on a decision on which, from his silence, we can make a deduction.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) asked the very pertinent question whether DEFRA was consulted, and the answer that came back was not yes; it was, “We are one Government.” If I have ever heard a piece of prevarication elegantly executed in this Chamber, that was it. That is the problem: we all sense that this was driven by the Treasury, tin-eared—completely deaf to the real needs of the farming world and community. I suspect that even after the relatively short time the Minister has been in office—he did serve in opposition, and I know he was an attentive, listening figure in that time—even he must understand that this has caused a restiveness throughout the community, and not just a restiveness, but a despair. The 86-year-old lady, living in Sheepwash, who now sees herself as an impediment to the passage of her ancient farm to her own children and grandchildren is a human example of the impact, and she is not going to be comforted by the answer, “Well, only 27% of farms will be affected.” She says, “What about me?”

Can we afford to lose, even on the Treasury figures, 2,500 farms over this Parliament? Even on the minuscule figure that the Treasury takes into account, it is still 2,500 farms the length and breadth of England that will be lost—500 a year. I say we cannot afford it. We will debate this tomorrow. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) will debate it forcefully, and the Minister will no doubt be relieved to be sitting by the side of Treasury Ministers, who are going to have to take the rap for the mess that they have made.

I would like to work with the Minister on bovine TB. The disease affects my constituency, and the constituencies of all of us in Devonshire, profoundly. We do not want to go back in history. I recall that history too well. I recall the foot and mouth pyres, but also, as I have said, the silent and invisible carnage with the slaughter of cattle as a result of bovine TB, and the restrictions on dairy farms, on livestock grazing farms. Those are cruel—cruel not only to the animals but to the people. We need together to find a solution. I have been told that vaccination is just a few years away every time I have had a debate of this type. It would be interesting to know how far away the Minister thinks the vaccination is, and has he solved the problems of exporting the milk and the produce, once it has been vaccinated, to our markets abroad? I ask because of course it is difficult to determine whether something detected is the vaccine or the disease, and it is not clear that our markets would be available. Those problems have to be resolved by him, and I am very happy to work with him to do that.

Finally, on the question of the landscape management unit in the Fursdon review, may I urge the Minister to recall that what is critical—

Order.

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