Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 42, in schedule 12, page 443, line 13, leave out from “and” to end of line 16 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 45, page 443, line 13, leave out from “and” to end of line 16, and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 43, page 443, line 22, leave out from “and” to end of line 25 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”

This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 46, page 443, line 22, leave out from “and” to end of line 25 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 44, page 443, line 37, leave out from “and” to end of line 3 on page 444 and insert—

“(b) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would apply 100% agricultural property trust relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 47, page 443, line 37, leave out from “and” to end of line 3 on page 444 and insert—

“(b) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),””

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 48, page 444, line 15, at end insert—

“(1D) Where the whole or part of the value transferred is treated as reduced by 50% under subsection (1), the resulting inheritance tax liability is chargeable only if, within 10 years of the relevant transfer, the agricultural land giving rise to the charge is either—

(a) sold (and the owner has not purchased agricultural land elsewhere), or

(b) ceased to be used for farming.”

Government amendments 24 to 26.

Amendment 3, in schedule 12, page 451, line 22, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.

This amendment, along with amendments 4 to 23 would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief and delay the implementation date so that the changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027.

Amendment 31, page 451, line 22, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.

This amendment, with Amendments 32 to 36, would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief so that the changes take effect for transfers made from 6 April 2026.

Amendment 4, page 452, line 3, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 32, page 452, line 3, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Government amendments 27 to 29.

Amendment 5, in schedule 12, page 454, line 17, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 33, page 454, line 17, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 40, page 455, line 31, leave out “2031” and insert “2027”

This amendment would begin indexation in 2027 rather than 2031.

Amendment 41, page 455, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) If the Treasury estimates that the value of agricultural land has increased by more than the percentage increase in the consumer prices index during the same period, then it must instead make an order by statutory instrument amending each relief allowance amount relating to agricultural property by the percentage increase in the value of agricultural land.”

Amendment 6, page 461, line 2, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 7, page 461, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 34, page 461, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 8, page 461, line 17, leave out “sub-paragraph (3) will not apply” and insert

“the transfer will prove to be an exempt transfer”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 9, page 461, line 21, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert

“comes into force on 1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 35, page 461, line 21, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert

“comes into force on 6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 10, page 461, line 28, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 36, page 461, line 28, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 11, page 461, line 31, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 12, page 461, line 33, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 13, page 461, line 36, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert "1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 14, page 461, line 38, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 15, page 462, line 3, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 16, page 462, line 7, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 17, page 462, line 15, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 18, page 462, line 19, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 19, page 462, line 30, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 20, page 462, line 35, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 21, page 464, line 14, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 22, page 464, line 21, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 23, page 464, line 27, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Schedule 12.

New Clause 1—Section 62: application in Northern Ireland—

“(1) The Chancellor of the exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the effects of the measures in section 62 as they apply in Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment must consider—

(a) the number of estates in Northern Ireland expected to be subject to the reduction in agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(b) the potential benefits to farmers in Northern Ireland of exempting land used for agricultural purposes from the changes to agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(c) the potential costs to the Exchequer of exempting land used for agricultural purposes from the changes to agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(d) the impact of the measures on farm succession, land retention, and the viability of agricultural businesses in Northern Ireland, including any potential implications for the resilience and security of the UK’s food supply, and

(e) any other matters that the Chancellor of Exchequer deems appropriate.

(3) In subsection (2), “land used for agricultural purposes” does not include land that falls within the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of a land-banking investment scheme.

(4) In carrying out the assessment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to—

(a) the average farm size and land valuation profile in Northern Ireland,

(b) the prevalence of intergenerational family farming in Northern Ireland,

(c) the interaction between agricultural property relief and devolved agricultural support schemes, and

(d) any disproportionate impact on rural communities in Northern Ireland.

(5) The assessment must be carried out following meaningful consultation with—

(a) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland,

(b) representatives of farmers and land-based businesses in Northern Ireland, and

(c) such other persons as the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers appropriate.

(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of publishing the assessment, lay before Parliament a statement setting out the steps the Government intends to take in response to the assessment’s findings.

(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must keep the operation of the measures in section 62 under review in light of the assessment and publish a further assessment within 18 months of this Act coming into force.”

New clause 6—Impact assessment of section 62 prior to implementation—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of implementation of section 62 on family-owned farms and businesses.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider potential impacts on—

(a) business continuity,

(b) land use, and

(c) rural employment.”

New clause 7—Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”

New clause 17—Review of anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief—

“(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the effects of the anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider the effects of those provisions on—

(a) succession planning and intergenerational transfer of agricultural land and businesses,

(b) the viability and continuity of family-run farms,

(c) food security and domestic agricultural production,

(d) land management, environmental stewardship, and the condition of the countryside, and

(e) the availability of agricultural land for active farming.

(3) In conducting the review, the Treasury must consult such persons as it considers appropriate, including representatives of the agricultural sector.

(4) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a copy of the report within 12 months of the coming into force of the anti-forestalling provisions under this Act.”

As we come to the final group in today’s Committee stage on the Bill, I am pleased to open this important debate on Clause 62, schedule 12 and the many associated amendments. As reiterated throughout the day, the Bill delivers on the choices made at this Government’s two Budgets. It delivers fair and necessary reforms that strengthen the foundations of our economy and provide a secure future for our country. The choice at those two Budgets was austerity and decline or investment and renewal, and on both occasions the Labour Government rejected austerity and chose renewal.

Clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 make changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in order to target them more fairly, contribute to the sustainability of public finances and fund public services. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to HMRC data for 2021-22, 40% of agricultural property relief across the UK was claimed by just 7% of the estates making claims. That is £219 million in tax relieved from just 117 of the largest estates in the country, and it is a similar picture for business property relief: more than 50% of BPR was claimed by just 4% of the estates making claims. That is a striking £558 million in tax relieved from just 158 estates.

That contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smaller estates, and significantly lower average effective inheritance tax rates than most people who end up paying IHT will pay. That is the status quo that those seeking to reverse the Government’s reforms in full wish to perpetuate. It is not sustainable and, in the Government’s view, it is certainly not fair to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, especially in the context of the wider pressures on the public finances and public services.

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this area; she is a strong representative for the rural communities that she represents in the north-west of our country. I am sure that colleagues in DEFRA, including the Secretary of State and others, will be working hard to make sure that the funds that this Government have allocated for farming and farming businesses are spent in full, rather than leaving hundreds of millions of pounds underspent, as the previous Government did. We will make sure that the money gets to the farms that will benefit from it, to support them with the initiatives that they and we know would be good for them to pursue, because they are good for the environment and for those businesses.

I thank the hon. Member for raising the crofting sector and the rural communities that he represents. The Government will continue to do all we can to support different types of farmers, and to make sure that we can support tenant farmers too. I thank him for raising that point and for the representation that he provides to his constituents.

The changes made by Clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 will reform how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from 6 April this year.

Conservative Members keep repeating, “14 months”. I should use that as an opportunity to remind people of the 14 wasted years that their party put farmers and rural communities through; of the trade deals that they implemented, which made life worse for our farmers and farming communities; and of the hundreds of millions of pounds that went underspent in the farming budgets over 14 years, and which could have benefited rural communities and farmers.

After continued engagement from Ministers across the Government, including in the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Prime Minister’s engagement with important representatives in this space, the Government made a change—the change that the Government amendments will enable this Committee to legislate for, if it wishes, and I do hope it does. This change will strengthen the public purse by around £300 million.

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending a Westminster Hall debate focused on farming and farmers in Northern Ireland. It was a good, productive debate, and I took away many of the points raised. The hon. Member will know that the Government have made a change to increase the threshold.

Given that the hon. Member called that debate, I will.

I am sure that Environment Ministers will continue to engage with farming unions and farming representatives. Both in the run-up to the Budget and subsequently, Treasury Ministers and those from other Departments have engaged with farmers, and we will continue to do so, to support farmers in a way that the previous Government never did.

Individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and the figure will be fixed at that level until April 2031, alongside other inheritance tax thresholds, as we have been debating. Any unused allowance can be transferred to a surviving spouse or civil partner, including where the first death is before 6 April 2026. On top of that amount, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%. We are also reducing the maximum rate of business property relief available from 100% to 50% for shares designated as not listed on the markets of registered stock exchanges. The reliefs sit alongside other exemptions and nil rate bands. This means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax-free between them. That is on top of existing allowances, such as the nil rate band.

Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on the relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, interest-free. This benefit is not seen elsewhere in the inheritance tax system, and it means that the relief continues to be more generous than it was for the vast Majority of the 20th century. In fact, from April 2026, the reliefs will be more generous than they ever were under, for example, Margaret Thatcher’s Government.

Our reforms are expected to result in a total of up to 1,100 estates across the UK paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Only up to 185 estates across the UK claiming APR, including those also claiming BPR, are expected to pay more in the next tax year. This means that around 85% of such estates will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27. Excluding estates holding shares designated as not listed on the market of registered stock exchanges, only up to 220 estates across the UK only claiming business property relief are expected to pay more.

Go on, then. I will give way, but I was trying to make progress so that other Members could speak.

The Government do support the farming sector and the farming industry. We will continue to do so through the funds that we will make available via DEFRA—funds that were not fully spent under the previous Government. We have listened to farming communities and business representatives, and raised the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million as a result of that listening and engagement. The Government do not think it would be right to abolish the policy in full, because then we would forgo £300 million of revenue from the very largest estates. [Interruption.] Simon Hoare may say that £300 million is a rounding error, but it is important to raise revenue from a broad range of taxes, and from those with the largest-value estates in the country. As I said earlier, hundreds of millions of pounds in tax is relieved from the very largest estates in the country. If Opposition Members want that to continue to be the case, that is of course their right, but we Government Members think that our reforms are fair, and raise proportionate revenue from the very largest estates.

There were some forensic questions in that not brief Intervention, but of course I appreciate it, and I look forward to trying to go through—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the questions, okay? [Interruption.] It is a bit difficult when Opposition Front Benchers continue to barrack me while I am trying to answer the questions that a Back-Bencher has asked. If Victoria Atkins wishes to continue to hector me from a sedentary position, she may, but we will not have any time for me to answer questions.

On the points raised by Robbie Moore—let me dial down the temperature; congratulations for getting to me—and on how the spousal transfer is used in the inheritance tax system, we are replicating that in the treatment of the spousal transfer for APR and BPR. That is the way the transfer is set out in the inheritance tax system. We are not doing anything different or novel here. We just debated the thresholds, which will be set at current levels and will not be uprated in line with the changes that we are making to other taxes. The hon. Gentleman also asked about interest. As I said, where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on the relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, if they like, and that will be interest-free. I have been through the numbers. Only 185 additional estates claiming APR are expected to pay more in 2026.

To conclude, the reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances, and funding our public services.

This is the normal way that inheritance tax assets are taxed. There is not just APR and BPR, and the changes coming in in April; other assets are passed on through inheritance. We are applying the same treatment here; this is the standard way that inheritance tax is set for various assets.

As I was saying, these reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances and funding public services. They reduce the inheritance tax advantages available to some owners of agricultural and business assets, but those assets will still be taxed at a much lower effective rate than most other assets—a £6 million estate owned by a couple, for example, could have an effective tax rate of just 1.2%, which can be paid, interest-free, over 10 years.

Those opposing these reforms in full will be voting for a status quo in which the very largest estates pay a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than the smallest estates—a status quo where the Exchequer sees £219 million in tax relieved from just 117 estates claiming APR, and £558 million in tax relieved from just 158 estates claiming BPR. That is not sustainable, and it is certainly not fair. I therefore commend Clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 to the Committee.

I call the Shadow Minister.

I wish to speak to amendments 3 to 23 in the name of my right hon. Friend Victoria Atkins. By now we all know what Clause 62 and schedule 12 do: they would restrict agricultural property relief and business property relief to 100% of the first £1 million of qualifying assets and 50% thereafter—though I note that this legislation was written before the recent announcement, which I will obviously come on to. Members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party will fiercely oppose Labour’s family farm tax and family business tax in the Lobby today, just as we have since these policies were announced. We must first face the reality of the sheer number of Labour MPs intent on punishing those who dare to feed us, or who take a risk to build their own business.

Our amendments seek to mitigate at least some of the damage by removing the anti-forestalling measures that have purposely tied the hands of so many farmers and business owners across our country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and many others have pointed out that these measures particularly trap more elderly farmers, who have been robbed of their ability to plan. The Government have said all along that they expect farmers and business owners to alter the ownership structure of their assets. I would be really interested to hear just how the Minister believes that elderly farmers, in particular those in the final few years of their life, should do that.

Before I turn to the other issues, I note that the Amendment paper tells its own story: Government amendment after Government amendment, each one a U-turn and a rushed attempt to bury the incompetence, indifference and hostility that this Labour Government have shown to family farms, tenant farmers, rural communities and family businesses. I ask respectfully of the Minister, as my hon. Friend Harriet Cross asked earlier, why it has taken the Treasury more than a year to admit that it got this wrong. Why have farmers been forced to leave their fields and bring their tractors to Whitehall, just to be heard?

I pay tribute to the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and to my hon. Friend Robbie Moore, who gave this House five chances before today to vote against these changes. The Government had ample opportunity, but here we are. We know that their partial U-turn will not be enough. The Country Land and Business Association has been very clear that it will only limit the damage.

Many serious questions and concerns remain on the impact of clause 62, but I will highlight just three. First, from the very start the Government’s numbers have been, at best, questionable. The Treasury has disagreed with the CLA and others on how many farmers and businesses will actually be affected. Even after the partial U-turn, HMRC expects 1,100 estates to face larger inheritance tax Bills in 2026-27, 185 of which will be claiming APR. Yet the experience of many Members, from speaking to farmers and businesses in our constituencies, and that of several industry bodies is that that figure is massively wide of the mark.

My right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State has engaged extensively with farmers and those who represent farmers. The reason I am raising this point now is because the numbers are questionable—and not just on who is impacted by the measures but the net revenue to the Exchequer too. Some have suggested that the changes in Clause 62 may even end up costing the Exchequer. While the OBR has forecast that £500 million will be raised through clause 62 in 2029-30, the Confederation of British Industry’s analysis suggests instead a net loss to the Government of some £1.9 billion over the forecast period because of the impact that clause 62 will have on the wider economy.

I completely agree. We would not be doing this, and we should not be here, but clearly the policy has been executed without a plan—without serious thought, analysis or engagement. I would welcome anything that the Government can do to make this less painful for those affected and to get the numbers right.

The Minister explained that the Government expect to raise around £300 million even with the U-turn, but the initial costing was labelled in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook as “highly uncertain”. For those not familiar with this, there are different categories of uncertainty in the EFO, and “highly uncertain” is the most uncertain that one can be about a figure. Surely this new figure of £300 million is uncertain, just as the £500 million was. What assurance can the Minister provide that the Exchequer will not in fact lose out overall, despite the pain that the Government are determined to inflict? How confident is he in these numbers?

Secondly, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, family businesses and farmers have had to make many difficult decisions. Family Business UK and Make UK say that 55% of BPR-affected and 49% of APR-affected businesses have paused or cancelled investments. Family-run farms are putting off the purchase of new, more efficient machinery and family-run shops no longer see the point of expanding to an additional site or another high street, or of taking on more staff. It comes back to the questionable figures I talked about and the CBI’s analysis of the impact on the wider economy.

Finally, we should have no confidence in the practicality of the measures before us. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that extending 10 annual interest-free instalments to APR and BPR property does not solve the problem; those instalments will still be a significant burden. In practice, it is unlikely that many families will be able to pay the tax without selling up.

That is exactly right. I will let the Minister address that point, but let me pay tribute again to my hon. Friend, who has been a forceful champion for farmers across the country and has consistently raised these issues. That goes back to my point about the warnings provided to the Government about the practical implications of the changes, with their impact on family farms in particular. They were ignored until this point. The Minister will have to explain why that was.

Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that schedule 12’s failure to allow allowances to be allocated to specific property could undermine many wills as currently drafted. This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, disputes and real hardship.

Where the cap is exceeded, the first inheritance tax payment will fall just six months after death. If that deadline is missed, the estate will be hit with a punishing interest rate. Within six months, family farms must secure probate, value complex agricultural and business assets, calculate the liability and then raise the cash—often by selling parts of the estate to make the first payment. The NFU has been clear that expecting probate within six months is “unrealistic” given the complexity of valuing agricultural businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In practice, families and personal representatives will miss the deadline—through no fault of their own—without a confirmed tax bill and without the funds to pay for it.

The Government’s expectation is simply unrealistic. The approach is flawed, and the window must be extended. If Clause 62 is agreed to and the Government do not finally concede, family farmers and businesses in my community of Lincolnshire and those across the country will not rest until these changes are fully reversed. The only consolation I can offer farmers and businesses watching the votes closely tonight—they will be watching every single one—is that the next Conservative Government will scrap these immoral changes.

I rise to speak on schedule 12. I greatly welcome the Government’s changes to the proposed agricultural property relief and business property relief thresholds. As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am proud of the work that my Committee has undertaken on reviewing the Welsh farming industry and the report with clear recommendations that we produced before the Budget. I also thank the Treasury for its swift response to our report as well as the changes that it has made to the thresholds. These changes show that the Government are listening not just to farmers but to the Welsh Affairs Committee and Welsh Labour MPs.

The new higher thresholds are a win for Welsh farmers. Raising the allowance for 100% relief from £1 million to £2.5 million will ensure that the changes to inheritance tax are properly targeted at the wealthiest estates while ensuring that smaller-scale family farms remain protected. Couples will now be able to pass on £5 million-worth of agriculture or business assets between them, tax free. This additional relief will have a particularly significant impact in Wales, given its specific context, which is very different from England. This was a key finding of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry.

Absolutely; the hon. Member makes a point that I am going to come on to later.

Welsh farms are typically smaller than those in England, with 55% being less than 20 hectares, and 66% of Welsh farms are cattle and sheep farms situated on hilly or mountainous terrain, compared with just 12% in England, which also has a much higher concentration of arable farming. This leaves Welsh farms with the lowest average income of the four nations—£18,000 lower than in England. Welsh family farms are also a cultural bastion of the Welsh language, with almost half the people working on Welsh farms speaking Welsh as their first language—more than double the Welsh average.

While the Government’s changes to APR and BPR are likely to disproportionately benefit Welsh farmers, the diverse nature of farming across the four UK nations needs to be considered when making such significant changes. That is why the Welsh Affairs Committee continues to call for the Wales-specific impact assessment of the Government’s changes to inheritance tax that Ben Lake just referenced. It is critical that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. That is why it is important that we close the inheritance tax loophole that allowed wealthy investors to purchase agricultural land as a way of avoiding tax.

Ensuring that the tax burden falls fairly relies on effective data, however. The Welsh Affairs Committee and I remain concerned about the availability and accuracy of the data used to justify the thresholds set for APR and BPR, particularly in regard to Wales. The Government have thus far been unable to provide any estimate of the number of Welsh farms that will be affected by these reforms to inheritance tax. Such data is critical when considering any potential impacts on the Welsh farming sector, given its greater financial precarity and reliance on low-income, family-run livestock farms. We cannot afford to be complacent. I hope that the Government will ensure that they take specific account of the unique cultural, environmental and economic circumstances of farming in Wales when making such significant policy decisions. I wholeheartedly support the changes to the APR and BPR as laid out in the Government’s Amendment to schedule 12.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Farmers up and down the country should be really proud of the campaign that has forced the Government to rethink the completely short-sighted and ill-thought-out policy that has threatened the future of family farms up and down the country. I congratulate them on the result that they have secured. I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that they have spent an enormous amount of time, energy, anxiety and stress getting to the position that we are now in, and that it would have been a lot better if they had never had to do that in the first place.

The Liberal Democrats were the first party to come out against these tax changes, and I pay tribute to my colleagues, my hon. Friend Tim Farron and my right hon. Friend Mr Carmichael, who, along with other Lib Dem MPs, have challenged the Government on this at every opportunity and stood in solidarity with the farming community each step of the way.

I guess we will have to check our social media accounts.

I thank my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Would you like to intervene?

Order. I have no desire to intervene on the hon. Member—“Would the hon. Member like to intervene?”

My apologies, Ms Ghani.

The Government rushed out their original proposal with little understanding of its real-world impact on the sector. The 14 months of personal anxiety and business uncertainty will have lasting impacts on many and have hugely eroded trust in this Government. It should not have taken 14 months of anxiety, anger and protest to make the Government see sense. The farming community immediately warned what a detrimental impact the tax would have on rural communities, and the Government should have listened to them earlier.

This tax has represented an existential threat to the farming community, threatening to break the chain of family ownership that holds our countryside together through the generations. It comes on top of the wider challenges of the economic environment that farmers now operate in. On the surface, these farming assets are worth a lot, but the reality is that most family farms operate on incredibly thin margins or are loss making. Sharp rises in input costs—fuel, feed and fertiliser—labour shortages, national insurance contribution increases and unfairness in the supply chain mean that nationally the average profit on capital invested in farm businesses is less than 1%.

It is not just the family farm tax that the Government have beaten up our farmers with; it is also the sudden and unheralded removal of SFI payments last March. Almost a year later, there is still no news of a replacement scheme. Please will the Government move faster to provide a new plan? Farmers urgently need this information as it drives key decisions, and the seasons do not wait.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

The Lib Dems welcome the U-turn by the Government in December raising the allowance to £2.5 million and welcome the change announced in the Budget permitting the allowance to be transferable between spouses and civil partners. But as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, put it,

“These changes make the policy better, but that is not the same as saying that they make it good.” —[Official Report, 5 January 2026;
Vol. 778, c. 30.]

We ask the Government to think again in the following areas. The Treasury estimates that the tax will now raise £300 million by 2029-30, down from £520 million. If the same pro rata reductions applied, less than £100 million will be raised in 2026-27—minuscule against the estimated total tax receipts this year of £1.23 trillion. Professional bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, has expressed concern at how administratively burdensome it will be to value assets and calculate potential liabilities, even if there is no tax to pay. How does the revenue forecast to be raised compare with the cost of administering this new policy?

When the Government originally announced the planned changes to APR last year, the Chartered Institute of Taxation also suggested introducing transitional gifting rules to support older farmers who have done the logical thing of hanging on to their land, but who are now faced with penalties for doing so. Can Ministers please look at ways of alleviating some of that burden for older farmers who have not been able to plan ahead for this change? We will be voting against Clause 62 because we as a party have consistently voted against the family farm tax and want it scrapped in its entirety.

That is a very good question, but £100 million is 0.1% of £1.23 trillion. In materiality, it is important to think of it in that range. I do not think this is the way of going about it.

I ask the Government to consider voting in favour of Amendment 3, which would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to APR and BPR and delay the implementation date so that changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027, and of our new Clause 7, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish an assessment of annually uprating the relief allowance for APR by the change in the value of agricultural land.

While awareness of the APR changes is very high among the farming community, I am concerned that awareness of the changes to BPR may not be as high among business owners in many sectors. Do the Government have any plans to raise awareness so that people know what is headed their way?

I welcome the Finance Bill. I will address Clause 62 and schedule 12, which relate to APR and BPR. I have spoken on this subject several times, and did so back in November, because my Constituency of North Northumberland has over 700 farm holdings, each of them growing the food that we eat and stewarding our land. As one farmer said to me recently:

“We have farmed this land since the mid-1800s—each generation investing in long-term decisions…which have benefited not just the farm, but the local area.”

I believe it is messages like that and the ability of farmers in North Northumberland to get this message across that were pivotal to bringing about these Government amendments.

The amendments will establish 100% relief up to £5 million for a couple, transferable between spouses, and a 50% relief thereafter. That will protect most family farms, with 85% of estates seeing no additional burden from April. I am indebted to the farmers of North Northumberland both for the way that they have engaged on the issue of inheritance tax and for the hard work they do day in, day out to put food on our dinner tables.

As I will go on to say, I can confirm that I have had many messages of support for this change in policy. It has been a pleasure to work with the Labour rural research group and other colleagues on this matter, as my hon. Friend mentioned. As I thank farmers, I also want to thank the Government for listening, learning and acting. It is the hallmark of a mature Government and of a healthy parliamentary debate that we have got to this point.

A multitude of structural factors contribute to the sustainability of intergenerational farming. There are many similarities between Britain’s blue-collar workers in the factories and what we might call green-collar workers in the fields. Both are squeezed by commercial interests and a globalised race to the bottom in pricing, costs and wages, which is why the laissez-faire approach to farming economics, such as in the imbalanced trade deals of the Conservative party, work against the sustainability of farming.

We have to plough a new furrow that will make farming genuinely sustainable in an intergenerational way. Protecting farming will require Government to form a new covenant with farming and green-collar workers more generally. The implementation of the Batters review will be very important here, particularly the farming and food partnership board, so that the whole supply chain can be examined and improved. It is high time the supermarkets in particular gave a fair price for the produce of our famers. Despite what the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, Charlie Maynard, said, the Secretary of State announced last week the plan for the SFI application process later this year. I particularly welcome the fact that there will be ringfenced support for smaller farms within that.

As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I will just mention that some larger farms will be impacted even after the changes to APR and BPR. For those just above the threshold, I encourage the Government to consider addressing the potential time and capacity challenges for accurate estate valuation and speedy probate, which must dovetail with the expectation of inheritance tax payments, so that estates that need to pay have clarity and are not penalised for blockages in the wider system.

I know that the Government are totally committed to the success of farming. That is vital, because the country needs a flourishing farming sector.

I thank my Constituency neighbour for his Intervention. Rather than go down the route of his question, let me respond with the words of one of my local farmers. She wrote to me on 23 December and said:

“As you know, we have been very vocal in opposing the earlier proposals, so it is equally important to state how strongly we welcome this change in policy. Increasing the threshold, together with the ability to retrospectively transfer unused APR and BPR allowances from my late mother to my father, will make a huge difference to our family and the viability of our farm business.

I will leave my remarks there.

I will speak to Clause 62, schedule 12 and the amendments to them tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers.

Throughout debate on the Finance Bill, we have heard about the changes to inheritance tax, predominantly in relation to the agricultural and business property reliefs. My comments refer not only to the many family farming businesses affected by the Government’s changes, but to many other family businesses, be they hospitality or manufacturing businesses, including in my Keighley Constituency. They are all affected by the direction that the Labour Government are taking.

The changes that the Government have brought to the Committee do not get rid of the cliff edge associated with the measure kicking in a few months from now in April. Changing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million does not remove that cliff edge for a family business that has an IHT liability kicking in. I would like the Minister to explain further why the Government are not addressing that stark cliff edge, even though Members from all Opposition parties have reiterated that problem to the Government over the past 14 months.

The second matter I will raise is the absolutely bizarre and bonkers scenario that we find ourselves in. Two estates valued at £5 million could be subject to different tax liabilities depending on the ownership structure. How bizarre is it that we now find ourselves in a scenario in which an estate valued at over and above £2.5 million and owned by a single person could be subject to an IHT liability of 20%, but a farm valued at £5 million and owned by a married couple is subject to no IHT liability at all? I would like further explanation from the Minister on that specific point.

Of course, values vary dramatically across the country. In Northern Ireland, where most farmland assets are given very high valuations, farms of 200 acres, say, could be valued significantly more or less in different parts of the country, so they would be subject to different tax liabilities if they surpassed the £2.5 million and £5 million thresholds, depending on their ownership structures. Let us not forget that, for arable farmers, feed wheat prices have not changed dramatically over the past 20 years—they still average about the same—but input prices are going up, no thanks to this Government’s raising of employer national insurance contributions and imposition of the fertiliser tax. In reality, the productivity and return rate for a farming business, if it breaks even at all, is about 1%. Those with asset base that is valued significantly higher will be subject to a higher tax liability, and they will have to sell off more assets to pay the same amount, despite their level of return being 1%, if that. That is different from a farm that has been valued at a much lower rate. Will the Minister explain what level of detail the Government have gone into to explore such challenges that are facing many farming businesses?

That brings me to me to my next point, on the matters to which the Shadow Minister rightly and eloquently referred to as issues of practicality. Disputes will be made throughout the process regarding how a farm or asset base is valued—quite rightly; why wouldn’t there be?—but what capacity is there in the Valuation Office Agency, and with our district valuers, to deal with the uncertainty of valuations that will be coming through on death, so that a timely tax liability can be paid within the tight timeframe that the Government have set out? This has been going on for the last 14 months, and while many Labour MPs have turned up today, only one had the backbone to stand up on behalf of his constituents against the Chancellor: Markus Campbell-Savours. He has had the Whip removed and I give him absolute credit for standing up on behalf of his constituents. I find it absolutely galling that other Labour MPs are now turning up and saying that they gave this narrative to the Chancellor and Prime Minister throughout. Where on earth were those Labour MPs in the last 14 years?

That brings me to business property relief. Yes, attention has quite rightly been put on our farming community and the impact that this Labour Government are having on the wider supply chain associated with our rural economy, but in Keighley and Ilkley we also have many manufacturing businesses, many hoteliers, and a brewery—with which many hon. Members will be familiar because it serves an excellent pint. Those family businesses are impacted by the changes to BPR, and it is really frustrating; I do not think I have heard one Labour MP bring the narrative to Ministers or the Chancellor over the past 14 months, about the implications for many of those other family businesses beyond the farming world that are being impacted by the BPR liability.

To sum up, I would specifically like the Minister to explain why we have ended up in this bizarre scenario where there can be two £5 million valuations on death, and in one scenario there will be no IHT liability, but in another a potentially dramatic IHT liability. He did not answer the point on indexation when I intervened on him at the Dispatch Box. The Government have fixed the threshold at £2.5 million for a long period of time. Valuations will change in that period, thereby potentially exposing a business to having to dispose of more assets to cover an IHT liability.

How on earth is it fair that a family business in my constituency has already been told that its BPR liability will be more than £800,000? It employs 250 people in Keighley, and the professional advice it has been given to mitigate that tax liability is either to dispose of assets, or to dispose of shares in the business. Either way, that family are losing the productivity of their business and potentially exposing a number of jobs, and they may have to give away the ownership of a business that has been in the family for four generations. This is bad policy by the Government. They may have raised the threshold, but it is quite clear to me and the many stakeholders I have spoken to that they have not done their homework when looking at the practicalities of the implementation. That is why Conservative Members will continue to take the narrative that the family farm tax and the family business tax must be axed in their entirety.

It is a delight to speak in this debate following what was possibly the best Christmas present that I have ever received: no shade to my parents or husband, but when we got the call from the Treasury on 23 December and heard about the raising of the threshold for agricultural property relief and business property relief, it was more than I had ever hoped for. I am grateful to the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and colleagues for navigating the genuinely tricky balance between ensuring that the farming industry is not used to avoid tax, that our family farms are protected and encouraged to thrive, and that food security is protected in increasingly turbulent times internationally.

Let me put on record my huge thanks to my colleagues in the Labour Rural Research Group, of which I am delighted to have become treasurer today as we regroup for our next plans. In pushing for the change to the thresholds, they have shown me the collegiate and constructive politics that I had always hoped was possible for this country, under the solid leadership of my impressive hon. Friend Jenny Riddell-Carpenter.

When I stood as an MP in a rural area, I was most excited to learn more about the land and the farming industry that had been all around me growing up. It was challenging to have to start those conversations among such heated debate, but I got into politics because I like a robust discussion. And you know what? The situation allowed us to move past the niceties quickly and to talk frankly from the beginning about what really mattered to farmers, farming communities and family businesses—and it has been a joy to hear about the passion, the history, the deep pride in this country and its traditions, and about what our land and close-knit communities provide for us, from the voices of families who are motivated to keep it going in a way that money alone could never inspire.

We have heard a lot of discussion in recent years about what it means to be British. A poll last year by More in Common found that of all the things that British people are proud of, the countryside came second, with only the NHS ahead of it. There are a lot of decisions to be made about the role of agriculture in British society. I am grateful to Minette Batters for producing in her farming profitability review a brave and system-wide approach to the future of farming in this country, and I hope that the Government are bold enough to take on all her recommendations. We also have trade deals to negotiate, which must uphold the same standards that we rightly hold our farmers to, and indeed that they want to uphold without being undercut from abroad.

We have also had a lot of discussions about ideas like 15-minute cities and sustainable economies. Most rural towns and villages are 15-minute cities, with everything in one place and everyone helping each other out. I know that globalisation favours agglomeration and the urban, but let us not forget who did circular economies first: our rural towns and villages. Let us learn from them now, as much as we ask them to learn from the things that we do in this place.

When we talk about what it means to be British in the light of this Finance Bill, which sets the tone for what we want British growth to be in the next decade, let us make sure that we protect what makes us want to be British. I do not want this country to be prosperous at any cost—I want us to be prosperous in a truly British way. Both myself and the public are clear that that includes the countryside, and our rural economies and communities, being at the very heart of who we are.

I thank the Government for their continued work on adapting the Bill through Amendment 24, and looking more widely at how we improve and sustain support for farming in the long term. I have 829 farms in my Ribble Valley Constituency—mainly dairy and cattle, and with a wide range of innovation and diversification. One farm I visited has a value of around £3 million, and the people I met there told me that they had slowly seen farm after farm close in their part of the constituency over the past 20 years. Today’s changes mean that they now have confidence that the farm can be passed on to a fifth generation, and they are also confident to invest in new calf housing, supported by other Government funding.

I question how many famers Opposition Members have spoken to in recent weeks, because most of my farmers are happy with these changes and want me to now focus on other critical issues. The farm I mentioned has seen a drop of 9.5p per litre in what it has been paid for milk since last October, so although I now welcome the tax policy in the Bill, I remind the Government that that there is still a huge amount of work to do to ensure that farms are sustainable and our food security is robust.

I hope that the Government will work with us to put increasing pressure on supermarket shareholders to play their part—supermarkets are companies that thrive from British custom—by working much harder to protect the lifeblood of our economy, as farmers are, as well as their pockets.

I completely agree. That is why it is disappointing that the Opposition are looking at certain details, when all the farmers that I speak to desperately want us to focus on the next stages of how we support those farms. We have done the thing that we needed to do to protect the smallest ones.

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We have spoken about that issue with Ministers; is an important conversation that we absolutely have to have.

Another of my farms belongs to a constituent who was one of the first to reach out to me and meet me in London. I have spoken about his farm in previous debates; it is a partnership between husband, wife and mother. Under the original plans, he would have faced a liability of £130,000 when the mother passed away in coming years, but thanks to Government Amendment 24 the liability is completely removed, allowing them to focus on profitability.

I also have a significant number of family-owned businesses in my Constituency, including Massey Feeds, which happens to supply the agricultural sector. Its people made a really strong point to me when I met them last year; if they had had to downscale to afford the original proposed changes to BPR, their main option would have been to sell one of their company’s three sites to a foreign-owned competitor. Although we welcome foreign investment in this country, it does nothing for our sovereignty, growth or innovation when the proceeds and hard work of British-built companies end up as profits in other countries. After the announcement in December, I was delighted to hear from the owner, Kynan Massey, who thanked this Government for listening and for adapting the BPR thresholds. He told me that the recent change means that the business has the confidence to continue to invest, including with a £2 million investment to grow the capacity of its site in my constituency.

Gazegill farm in my constituency has been in the same family for 500 years and has an estimated value of just over £4 million. It employs 39 full-time equivalents through its organic farm, its award-winning restaurant Eight at Gazegill—I recommend that everyone visiting Lancashire should try it out; it is the best farm-to-fork experience in the country—and its growing farm shop. Emma and Ian, who run Gazegill, are the perfect example of ambitious and innovative company owners, working hard to regenerate and bring new employment and tourism to parts of Lancashire that will really benefit from new investment. The new changes to APR will allow them to push ahead with that investment, including by building a new farm shop later this year.

If we are serious about supporting small businesses across our regions, about local sustainable economies and about improving the health of this country, farms like Gazegill are exactly the type of companies we should support to grow. I wholly support Government amendment 24 to ensure significant protection and support for business owners like Emma and Ian and all the incredible farms in Ribble Valley, which I am so proud to represent.

I rise to speak about the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Clause 62 and schedule 12. I do so having stood shoulder to shoulder with farmers from my Constituency of Upper Bann, from across Northern Ireland and from across this entire United Kingdom; they have lobbied, protested and spoken with one voice in defence of their livelihoods and their family farms since the tax grab was announced. It has been my greatest honour to come alongside and fight this battle with them. It is because of their persistence that we have seen any movement at all from this Government.

While I acknowledge that the increase in the inheritance tax threshold to £2.5 million represents a concession, it is a hard-won one. It was not offered freely; it was forced by the strength and unity of the farming community and by the courage of the minority on the Back Benches of the Labour party. Even so, it remains wholly insufficient and fails to address the fundamental unfairness that remains embedded in the Bill.

Ultimately, we on the DUP Benches—indeed, Members rights across the Ulster Benches—want to see this policy scrapped in totality. That is why I support Amendment 3 and the linked amendments 4 to 23, which would delay the commencement of these changes to 1 March 2027. Farming families planned succession responsibly and in good faith under the rules as they stood; changing those rules mid-stream is unjust and destabilising, and it undermines confidence across the entire sector.

I thank my hon. Friend for his Intervention. Indeed, 25% will still be hit, including some world-class producers in Northern Ireland. The dairy sector will be hit hardest because of our land values, which I will speak about now.

New Clause 7 seeks to address a glaring omission in the Government’s approach: the failure to index-link or uprate the APR allowance. Agricultural land values have risen sharply over many years. In recent months, land in my Constituency of Upper Bann was sold for £32,000 per acre, demonstrating the value of land in Northern Ireland and the impact that this Bill will have on our farms. Those land values do not arise from the effort of the farmer, and farm incomes have not kept pace. A static threshold in a rising land market guarantees that more and more family farms will be dragged into the inheritance tax net year after year. Index-linking is not radical; it is common sense—something that this Government appear to be lacking.

In the same spirit, I also want to highlight Amendment 43, which would retain 100% business property relief where a property has been owned for at least 10 years as part of a genuine, actively operated family business. It recognises long-term stewardship and intergenerational responsibility, and it draws a clear distinction between established family enterprises and short-term or speculative ownership. If the Government’s aim is—as they have stated—to target avoidance rather than to punish genuine businesses, then this amendment deserves serious consideration.

There is a profound unfairness at the heart of this policy, which the Government have yet to explain or justify. A single farmer receives a £2.5 million threshold, while a married couple can pass on £5 million free of inheritance tax. Two identical farms of identical value can face vastly different tax outcomes purely on the basis of their ownership structure.

Much clarity is needed, and I trust we will get that clarity in today’s debate. A farm worth £5 million owned by a single farmer could face a tax bill of around £500,000, while a farm of the same value owned jointly would face no tax bill at all. That is not fair; it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Farmers are asset rich but cash poor. Many family farms exceed £2.5 million in value, and not because they are wealthy enterprises, but because land values have risen dramatically while margins remain tight and incomes volatile. As my hon. Friend Jim Shannon has outlined, an estimated 25% of farms in Northern Ireland fall above that threshold. Those farms are the backbone of our economy. The move from 100% relief to 50% relief above the cap is not a minor adjustment; it is a fundamental weakening of agricultural property relief. It risks forcing families to sell land, reduce the scale of their business or take on unsustainable debt—not because their farms have failed, but because their tax system has failed them.

I will quickly address new Clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish a Northern Ireland-specific impact assessment. That should not need an Amendment; it should be done as a matter of course. But this sudden interest in farming by the Alliance party is not lost on the folks at home. Not only are farmers at home battling the Labour Government’s anti-farming policies, but they have an Alliance Farming Minister who is tone deaf to the needs of farmers—a Minister who supports climate change extremism, who is further regulating the industry, and who is blaming farmers for the algae bloom on Lough Neagh while ignoring the 200 million tonnes of waste from Northern Ireland Water. Farmers in Northern Ireland are getting it from all quarters, and I, for one, make no apology for standing up tonight against this tax grab, but also against the policies in Northern Ireland that are damaging our farms.

A clear principle is at stake. People are taxed throughout their lives on their income, on their profits and on what they produce. To then tax those same assets again, simply because someone has died, is a double whammy. It is double taxation in all but name, and it penalises families at the very moment of loss. That is a principle I cannot support. It is immoral. A death tax is immoral. This policy will drive despair—not prosperity—into farming communities if it is allowed to stand. The Government still have the opportunity to do the right thing. Politics is about doing the right thing, and the Minister knows that the right and honourable thing to do is to consign this policy to the farmyard manure heap. If the Government choose not to, they must accept the lasting damage that this policy will inflict on family farms, rural communities and our national security. The outcomes are on this Government’s shoulders.

As someone who represents a large semi-rural Constituency, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the changes to agricultural and business property relief and why they matter for farming families and for fairness in our tax system. I welcome these changes, which recognise the reality of the asset-rich, but cash-poor nature of farming, where land might be worth a lot of money by most people’s standards, but that value cannot be realised in cash terms unless it is sold, particularly for non-farming use.

The aim of this inheritance tax policy is simple: fairness for hard-working family farms, but no open-ended tax breaks for the wealthiest. The Government are reforming outdated tax relief rules to ensure that the very largest estates make a fair contribution. Under these changes, small and medium-sized agricultural estates will remain unaffected by inheritance tax, with full relief still applying up to £2.5 million for an individual, rising to £5 million for a married couple, who will be able to transfer their allowances to each other, as is the case for personal inheritance tax. I am slightly surprised that those on the Conservative Benches are only now discovering that concept, given that it has been standard for many years.

What will change is the ability for the ultra-wealthy and the very largest estates to use agricultural land as a tax planning tool, driving up land prices and shutting out genuine farmers, while making little or no contribution in return. The farmers I have spent time with—over many meetings in village halls, at farmhouses and at the Westmorland county show, which I highly recommend—were clear that they understood the need to prevent the ultra-wealthy avoiding tax, but they were rightly concerned that the threshold of £1 million, as originally proposed, would inadvertently catch ordinary family farms. Local farmers and solicitors were extremely generous in sharing their financial information with me, which was sent directly to the Treasury. It showed the reality of the finances of farming.

I must make special mention of a local Labour party member, Karenna Caun, who organised for that information to be gathered and who helped me to reach out to farmers and related businesses, particularly in the Lune valley. The NFU and others have already recognised that these changes materially improved the position for farming families. These changes have taken on board concerns raised by rural Labour MPs, but with these reforms targeted at the biggest estates, the Government expect to raise £300 million a year by the end of the decade. That is money we can put into local GP services, rural bus services and village schools, giving our children the best start in life. Yes, some of the largest estates will pay more after these changes.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman missed the third paragraph of my speech, in which I talked about the asset-rich but cash-poor nature of farming. Land may be worth a lot of money according to most people’s standards, but it may not be possible to realise the value in cash terms unless the land is sold, especially for non-farming uses. As he knows, I am talking about the threshold that has now been set at £2.5 million for individuals and £5 million for couples, not the £1 million threshold that I and many of my colleagues have succeeded in changing.

I make no apology for supporting a progressive policy that closes tax loopholes for the wealthy. I am thinking of people such as James Dyson, who talked proudly about buying up agricultural land in order to avoid tax.[Official Report, 15 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1116.] (Correction) How can anyone defend multimillion-pound estates paying zero inheritance tax, when we are digging ourselves out of the fiscal and social hole made by 14 years of Conservative government?

I will not.

Our farmers have been battered by Brexit, with their incomes and standards of living falling drastically since 2016. Crop yields have been impacted by flooding, and trade deals agreed by the Conservatives sold them down the river. Those 14 years of Conservative government were just as bad for my farmers as they were for the rest of us. I am afraid that I am not particularly inclined to take criticism from the Opposition Benches. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are against taxing the largest estates. They are saying that estates that are worth more than £2.5 million, or £5 million—[Interruption.] I have listened closely to the debate, and I am confident in my quoting of what has been said by Opposition Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chuntering from a seated position.

I grew up in a tiny village in Cumbria. With the surrounding farms, it numbered about 300 people. We had no shop, and there was one bus to Carlisle a week. We did have two pubs—we knew how to have a good time. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members about what country life is really about, and I certainly will take no lectures from the wealthy Reform MPs—they are not in the Chamber now and have taken no part in the debate—who seem to enjoy cosplaying as country folk, in a display of what I think is patronising political opportunism. We need to ensure that there is fairness in our inheritance tax system, which is why I urge all Members to support Clause 62 and schedule 12.

Clause 62 shows that this Labour Government simply do not understand farming communities. Persevering with an ill-thought-through family farm tax that treats business assets as personal wealth, even with the recent concession, will continue to harm investment in food security and rural growth. At the very least, it should be paused entirely until the publication of an independent impact assessment identifying the true extent of the changes to farming livelihoods. I therefore support amendments 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, the combination of which would ensure that the full inheritance tax relief remained in place for family farms.

It is time that the farming sector moved away from survival mode to become a thriving industry once more, but, against a background of huge cost pressures, farmers are being asked to do more with less. They face input costs that are 30% higher this year than they were in 2020, while the £2.4 billion farming budget has barely changed since 2007. That alone has presented difficult business conditions, but in addition, during 2025 farmers were forced into making plans towards a gloomy future surrounded by all the family farm tax uncertainties. As a result, many have delayed making any investment in their businesses. Farmers such as those in Glastonbury and Somerton are the catalysts of growth in rural areas, but they now need confidence to make the investments that they have put off after 14 months of angst and frustration.

Absolutely. There is no doubt that the agricultural supply chain has been affected by the torrid 14 months of uncertainty caused by the family farm tax. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak consistently of growth, but their damaging policies have crippled family farms. Some 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled investment, 10% have downsized their operations, and 21% intend to do so before April this year.

Our farmers pride themselves on being resilient and getting on with the job, but the long-awaited and delayed Batters farming profitability review summed up the impact of the family farm tax well: it stated that the sector was “bewildered and frightened”. Following the Government’s last-minute concession, I am pleased that some farmers—such as David, who farms in Compton Dundon in Glastonbury and Somerton—are now fully exempt, but this comes after more than a year of sleepless nights, and we know that David is not alone. If the reforms are expected to raise only around £500 million a year, why have the Government been so willing to impose this level of disruption and uncertainty on family farms for a relatively small return to the Exchequer?

The Government’s whole attitude toward family farming communities has been hugely disappointing, to say the least. At the end of last week, after months of silence, we finally heard the details of the 2026 sustainable farming incentive, but despite this announcement, England is still on course to be an outlier in Europe, because English farmers will not receive any direct support in fulfilling their primary mission and motivation, which is to produce food. After being taken for granted and ignored by the Conservatives for so long, it is no wonder that half of British farmers have little confidence in this Government’s vision for farming, and many do not believe that this Government take food security seriously at all.

I want to be clear that although the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this concession, and although raising the thresholds will go some way towards mitigating the devastating impacts on the industry, this does not negate the year of stress and anxiety that farmers have endured, and many will still be hit by this tax. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the Constituency, run their businesses in multi-generational partnerships or extended family partnerships. It is totally outdated that this Government believe that farm businesses are managed by married couples. So many businesses will not benefit from the combined spousal allowance of up to £5 million, and it seems grossly unfair that if two farms are valued the same, one could be free of IHT, while the other could be landed with a huge tax burden.

Additionally, although the anti-forestalling rules remain in place, they deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way. The rules also put a massive burden on those who are over 75. The Liberal Democrats are clear that this is an unfair measure, which is why we have proposed new Clause 7. It would ensure that a review of the provisions takes place.

Although the Environment Secretary has declared that there will be no more changes to the family farm tax, I hope that the Government have recognised the scale of the damage that they have done to British agriculture. British farmers produce a public good; they are the linchpins of our country’s food security and therefore our national security. In an ever more volatile world, this is more important than ever. This Government must not let British farmers down again.

I rise to speak in favour of Government Amendment 24 and the associated amendments that will increase the 100% allowance cap for agricultural property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. In December, I believe I closed my last speech on this issue with a plea for the Government to listen to my more reasonable rural colleagues and to change course. I said that it was not too late. It was a plea, but for many of my constituents it was a prayer, and much to the relief of many farmers, it was a prayer answered on 23 December.

It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for seeing sense, as it would be not to thank the Members from across the House who have raised this issue consistently over the last year. While this amendment falls short of the full U-turn I would have preferred, today I will vote with the many rural Labour MPs who lobbied Ministers for many months to see this change. They may not have joined me in the No Lobby to vote against Budget resolution 50, but I have no doubt that we would not have seen a change of course without what I believe the Government have called their “constructive engagement”. I know what many of them did, and I hope in time that their constituents and their farmers know what they did, too.

I regret being placed in a position where I voted against the Government, but not to do so would have broken a promise. However, I believe the Government had more than ample time to reconsider this policy. To see colleagues whipped to vote for the measure days before the Government proposed amendments that some colleagues had called for over a year ago caused unnecessary pain. On that, I hope lessons are learned. Now, Whip or no Whip, I look forward to supporting this Government in their important task of helping all working people thrive.

I rise to address Clause 62 and schedule 12. I, for one, cannot believe the self-congratulatory tone of so many contributions from across this Chamber. The Shadow Minister, Gareth Davies, pointed out that Labour Members had five opportunities to change these rules, and only one Member—Markus Campbell-Savours—voted to do so.

However, the initial change to APR in 2024 was described by NFU Scotland as

“devastating to the vast Majority of farms and crofts”.

The concerns raised by farmers across Scotland, including a significant number in my Constituency, were ignored by a Labour Government who appeared to be completely blind to the fundamentals of rural life and rural communities. When defending the decision in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Committee’s first report on the Government’s vision for farming, published in May last year, the UK Government said:

“Ministers from multiple Government departments have had several meetings with agricultural organisations on this matter since Autumn Budget 2024, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers’ Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Farmers’ Union of Wales”.

Here is the killer:

“After listening, the Government believes the approach and timescale set out for these reforms is an appropriate one.”

In the 2025 Budget, just a few months ago, the spousal transfer allowances were changed, and this was welcomed, but there was nothing further for worried farmers. As in so many areas in which this Government have been forced to U-turn, why did they not listen from the start? Is everything we say on these Benches to be dismissed as political rhetoric? Was it arrogance? Look where this has led—to a Prime Minister and a Government regarded by the public as the worst ever. We do not need a Government who listen later, if they feel like it. We need a Government who listen from the start. We need an end to the sound of screeching tyres from the Government machine as it performs another U-turn that could have been avoided. If

“food security is national security”,

as Labour said in its manifesto, why did Labour feel it was acceptable to make farmers face insecurity about their livelihoods, and the country face food insecurity in the face of a growing international crisis? After the recently announced threshold changes, it was very disappointing to see the failure of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to offer an apology to the people who produce our food.

The anti-forestalling clause in the Bill continues to pose a perverse incentive. It penalises anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a substantial IHT bill and potentially triggering capital gains tax. If no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That creates an appalling situation where terminally ill or elderly farmers, especially those unlikely to live for a further seven years, face perverse choices: keep the farm and hope to die before April this year; sell the farm, with a potential loss of food production to the nation; or transfer the farm in the usual way and saddle their children with a huge tax bill. No set of tax measures should—nor should this Bill —create such a situation. Of course these IHT rules apply elsewhere, but this is where we see Labour failing to understand what it is dealing with. A working farm is like no other business. What it produces concerns everyone, not some segment or niche area of the economy.

In conclusion, the NFU Scotland president, Andrew Connon, stated:

“The anti-forestalling clause, in particular, is morally indefensible. No tax policy should ever place a terminally ill farmer in the position of being financially better off dead than alive.”

The House will have an opportunity later on to protect farm production from that perverse incentive; that is what my Amendment would achieve. The amendment before us tonight gives us an opportunity to change this. If we fail to do that tonight, I will seek to bring my amendment back on Report.

I am speaking in favour of the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend Daisy Cooper, and against the changes to APR in general, and its less conspicuous but equally ugly twin sister, the changes to BPR, because they are downright destructive to the economy in rural places like North Shropshire.

The Conservatives showed that they took farming communities for granted, presiding over botched trade deals and an unfair transition from the old basic payment system to the environment management scheme, and leaving the farming budget with an underspend of hundreds of millions of pounds, but the new Labour Government have shown that they do not understand rural communities whatsoever. It is utterly inexcusable that family farms have been put through over a year of uncertainty and anguish since the Government first announced changes to APR. I have had the pleasure of visiting many farms and attending roundtables with farmers in my Constituency. The uncertainty, anxiety and fear caused to them and their families because of the changes has been appalling for Shropshire, not only because those farmers are part of the economic backbone of the economy, but because they are part of the community.

As we have disputed with the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats were the first to call out and oppose the unfair family farm tax in last year’s Budget. We have been proud to stand alongside our farming communities in campaigning against it ever since. December’s U-turn, which increased the farm inheritance tax threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, has been hard won, and we are grateful to all the farmers who have fought tirelessly to achieve it. It is a step in the right direction, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that, but having spoken to farmers in my constituency, I can say that the change just does not go far enough.

I will focus on the dairy industry, because North Shropshire has a lot of dairy farmers. Dairy farming in the modern era is capital-intensive. You need expensive assets, like automated milking systems, cooling units, feed systems, housing and slurry storage. They are all essential for operating the modern dairy farm, but incomes are low and volatile. The reality is that the industry is becoming increasingly unprofitable, and many smaller dairy farms have already sold up in North Shropshire. To make matters worse, milk prices have recently fallen below the cost of production, while the price of feed and energy and labour costs remain historically high.

Last week, two North Shropshire dairy farmers outlined the crisis that their sector has been put in. As partners in their farm, they told me that even with December’s increase in the threshold, the family farm tax incentivises them to keep their business small—they describe the tax as putting the dairy industry in a straitjacket. Because they have borrowed to finance their assets and capital expenditure, these farms are in a position where they are worrying about servicing their debts, maintaining production and remaining viable, yet the value of their land and machinery is in excess of the cap. There is already no money left for future capital expenditure, and now they have to plan to be able to pay off IHT in the future as well, which will not be achievable for them without selling parts of the farm to big players whose methods will be far less sustainable and worse for the environment than their current low-input model. Ending capital investment not only affects family farms and their growth, but puts our nation’s agricultural equipment producers and suppliers out of business, damaging growth and reducing our food security.

The Government wanted to end the practice of agricultural land being bought up and prices driven up by super-rich and super-wealthy non-farmers using the land just to avoid inheritance tax, which is a sensible idea. However, their current cap on relief policy fails to do that, leaving us with the worst of all worlds.

Turning to business property relief, family-owned businesses are feeling just the same squeeze. In places like North Shropshire, there is a high percentage of family-owned businesses. Last week I spoke to the managing director of Ridgway Rentals, a medium-sized family-run plant hire company, whose head office is based in the market town of Oswestry in my constituency. As a plant hire company operating nationwide, its assets include excavators, diggers, bulldozers and other large bits of machinery, which means that they have a very high asset worth. The managing director told me that the changes to BPR mean there is “no point in growing as a business” and believes there must be countless other businesses that have either closed or been sold because of the Government’s recent multifaceted attack on business in this country. While he did say that the recent increase in the threshold is an improvement, the managing director said that it only “slightly loosens the noose that sits around businesses’ necks”.

This Government have repeatedly stated growth as one of their key missions, but their misguided policies are achieving the opposite in rural places like North Shropshire. We have demanded that the Government scrap these unfair taxes in full. If they refuse to do so, I will be joining others in the Liberal Democrats in voting against those changes this evening.

I rise to speak to Clause 62 and schedule 12.

I certainly welcome the fact that, though belatedly, the Government did get to the point of climbing down on the £1 million threshold. They should have gone much further: this tax should not exist at all. If there is to be such a tax, it should be at a viable threshold. The climbdown was not delivered with great grace; indeed, it followed a debate in this House in which the Minister doggedly defended the £1 million threshold, telling us it was fair and necessary—the very words that he uses now to defend the £2.5 million threshold. However, even though that was the manner of the delivery, the climbdown, so far as it goes, is welcome.

We need to be aware of the limitations on how far this concession does go, as it will very swiftly be diminished with time because of the lack of indexation. This is a diminishing win—a win secured by our farming communities through their determined campaigning, but a win that will melt away as each year goes by. Take my part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. In the past five years, land values have increased by 40%. If that trajectory continues for the next five years, in today’s terms the threshold will be worth only £1.5 million. It will lose 40% off its value.

Unless the Government are willing to face up to the need to index-link the threshold, the bona fides of their conversion on this issue is very suspect indeed. If they have genuinely realised that £1 million was wholly inadequate and £2.5 million as a minimum was necessary, they need to sustain that value going forward. That is the real test of the bona fides of this Government on this issue. They cannot simply sit back and wait for the Treasury to increase its tax take because land values rise and the value of the £2.5 million diminishes every time that happens. If it is only a tactical move to buy time, then time is on their side, because in due course this will fritter away to the point where it is of very little value indeed.

My plea tonight is for the Government to demonstrate that they have genuinely realised the need to protect farming families by committing to index-linking this concession. Without that, it will diminish very severely with time, and surely those who feed us and keep bread on our tables are the people this Government should be thinking about. They are not thinking about them if they insist on a de minimis threshold that will dimmish almost out of sight as time goes forward. That is the test of this Government.

I want to speak to amendments 42 to 47. The Bill fails to recognise the specific way in which family businesses are different from businesses whose shares can be traded. The tax changes announced at the 2024 Budget treat family businesses as though they are a liquid asset or as if their underlying value is expressed in tradeable shares, but family businesses are neither. Shares in a family business have only a nominal value, and it is this nominal value that is transferred upon death. No cash arises from the transaction—unlike with the sale of shares on an open market. That means that money to pay any tax charges arising on the transfer must be made out of the business’s current assets or by disposing of its fixed assets. The value of a family business is often in its fixed assets—typically land, buildings, plant and machinery, as well as patents, copyright and goodwill.

The purpose of business property relief was to enable those assets to pass intact from one generation to the next in order for the business to be transferred as a going concern and to maintain steady revenues that guarantee employment and supply chains. Removing BPR from the inheritance tax regime will mean that assets will need to be sold to pay the inheritance tax. That will not only reduce the overall value of the company but limit its ability to generate future revenue. Asset sales will already be subject to capital gains tax before the net value can be released to the shareholder by way of a dividend to pay the individual IHT liability, and that dividend itself will be subject to tax, so the asset sale has to realise sufficient cash to pay three separate taxes.

Members might argue that assets being disposed of by one company does not take them out of the economy, and indeed our tax system should ensure that assets are allocated to wherever they can be most efficiently exploited, but this change to BPR does not ensure the efficient reallocation of assets from one business to another. It forces the sale of productive assets that were being efficiently used, and there are no guarantees that the asset can be put to its most productive use under its new owner.

Recent experience has shown that UK assets are increasingly being picked up by foreign investors, increasing the risk of job losses, restructuring and head office operations being moved abroad. Forced sales that need to be completed within IHT timescales are unlikely to make their full market value. In a specialised market in which there are few annual sales, one depressed sale value can influence the valuation of other assets in the same class, having a knock-on effect on all company balance sheets.

Death comes to us all in the end, being the only certainty in life apart from taxes. The IHT regime recognises and allows for assets to be passed down the generations without being taxed as long as seven years has passed between the date of the gift and the death of the bequeather. For many family businesses, the change in BPR rules will just mean that they have to actively plan for an orderly transition of shares to enable them to take advantage of this provision. But for some families, it is already too late to plan effectively.

The largest employer in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is a family-owned business with the Majority of shares owned by the founder, who is in his 90s. Even were the shares to be transferred now, there is little chance that seven years will elapse before his death, and therefore there is every risk that the firm will need to be broken up in order to pay the IHT liability, putting hundreds of jobs at risk.

Of course, tragically there is always the risk of unexpected death. While not being its principal purpose, one of the advantages of BPR is that it relieves the families of the deceased from involving themselves with complicated business transactions while mourning their unexpected loss. I welcome, of course, the announcement of the raising of the BPR threshold from £1 million to 2.5 million, but that merely reduces the number of companies that will be liable for the tax rather than addressing the issue.

There is currently no certainty on either the number of businesses that will be affected or on the amount of additional tax revenue that will be raised by the measure. The OBR has not delivered a costing based on the change to the policy announced in December. Given that the policy will trigger behaviour change, it is unclear to me that the benefits of this measure will outweigh the potential harm to employment in otherwise thriving businesses up and down the country.

I am sympathetic to the Chancellor’s instincts in this matter—I too, think we should be prioritising the needs of entrepreneurs over the protection of inherited wealth—but the likely meagre returns to the Treasury as a result of this policy do not justify the likely impact on employment that will occur if otherwise thriving businesses are forced to be broken up.

I rise to speak on Clause 62 and schedule 12, and my new clause 1. As we have already heard from the Northern Ireland Benches, this is about listening and recognising Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. I acknowledge from the outset the deep anxiety and distress caused to many farmers across Northern Ireland, including in Lagan Valley, by recent inheritance tax proposals. Farming in Northern Ireland is not just an economic activity; it is a community, a way of life and something that is deeply special and has been rooted in the land across Northern Ireland for generations.

As many have said, it is also central to our food security. I cannot for the life of me understand why, at a time of ongoing and increasing geopolitical insecurity, we would take this step. Farmers in Northern Ireland responded with a united, constructive and responsible voice. I pay tribute to the Ulster Farmers Union, the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster and any farmer who took a stand on this important issue. That unity mattered, and it forced movement from the Government.

I will not gainsay that or try to nit-pick: I welcome the U-turn. We should never have been in this position, but I do welcome the change. The original £1 million threshold was never fit for purpose for Northern Ireland. Analysis by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs showed that it could have pulled about 50% of Northern Ireland farms into inheritance tax compared with about 5% of estates generally across the UK. That level of impact was clearly disproportionate. I therefore welcome the increase in the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million and the decision to make the allowance transferable between spouses. Credit is due to the farming community alone for the united front that secured this long-overdue change.

But while many families will feel relief, as other members of the Committee have outlined, real uncertainty remains in particular for older farmers and those who cannot simply plan around sudden policy changes. I place on record my thanks to my colleague Andrew Muir MLA, the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland, and his officials. He has been steadfast, evidence-led and relentless in standing up for Northern Ireland’s farmers. That included repeated engagement with the Treasury and a joint letter in November with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Finance Minister, which called clearly for a higher threshold and spousal transferability. This is devolution working at its best, no matter what others may say, but it also shows why Westminster must listen when Northern Ireland speaks with one voice.

Northern Ireland is different, and one-size-fits-all policy does not work for Northern Ireland. Farms in Northern Ireland are smaller on average, intergenerational and family-run, and often land-rich but cash-poor. Land values, as others have elucidated, continue to rise faster in Northern Ireland. Even with a £5 million transferable threshold, DAERA estimates that the number of impacted farms would fall to about 5%, but those farms account for around 27% of the total area that is farmed. I am clear-eyed about this. Not every farm will be able to avail itself of the £5 million threshold, and poorly calibrated tax policy can force land sales, break succession and undermine the long-term viability of family farms.

As I said at the outset, there is a huge argument here around food security. Northern Ireland’s food and drink sector is the cornerstone of the UK’s food supply. It is worth £8.4 billion, it employs around 113,000 people and I am proud to say that it feeds 10 million people every year. Northern Ireland represents just 3% of the UK population, yet we produce 25% of the UK’s food. By comparison, Britain produces enough food for about 40 million of its 70 million population. Undermining farming in Northern Ireland is not simply a regional issue; it is a whole UK food security risk.

My new clause 1 is a necessary, evidence-based and common-sense Amendment. I am calling on the Government to properly assess the real impact on Northern Ireland, publish a Northern Ireland-specific assessment within six months of APR coming into force, and examine how many Northern Ireland estates are affected. I call on them to publish the case for exempting agricultural land, the cost to the Exchequer, the impact on farm succession, land retention and viability, and the implications for UK food security. The new clause also explicitly excludes land banking schemes. This is about real farmers, not tax avoidance.

There is also the importance of consultation. The new clause mandates meaningful consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, farmers and land-based businesses. This is about policy being made with people, rather than their having it done to them. Farmers must never again be an afterthought in Treasury decision making. The new clause requires the Chancellor to respond formally to the assessment, to set out what action will follow and to keep the policy under review with a further assessment within 18 months. That will create transparency, accountability and ongoing scrutiny, and it is particularly important and timely, given rising land values and ongoing uncertainty.

In conclusion, this new clause is about fairness, realism and respect. It recognises Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the UK, which I am very proud of. It gives the Government the evidence they need to get this right. Supporting it means supporting farmers, protecting rural communities and safeguarding the UK’s food supply. I also want to raise something that is of psychological value. We are having this debate tonight, but not one of us has said anything about the psychological impact and the body blow that this has caused to farming communities across the UK. They felt genuinely unneeded. They felt undervalued. In fact, they felt a burden. They felt that this tax raid was being done to them, and I am not sure what they ever did to deserve it. That is why I will continue to oppose the family farm tax in its entirety.

Following the initial decision to introduce new APR and BPR rates, farmers across the country rallied their tractors outside this place to get their voices heard. Other family-owned businesses have gone through the same agony over the last 14 months, but without the tractors and with perhaps less of a voice, fearing for the future of businesses that have been built up over generations—businesses that form the bedrock of local communities and economies, employing local people and supporting local suppliers. As one constituent business owner told me, even with the recent lifting of the threshold, the reforms to BPR could still lead to family businesses such as his having to break up their underlying assets just to survive. The resulting loss to the Treasury in economic activity will far outweigh the amount of tax raised.

This attack on family-run businesses is particularly damaging in a Constituency such as South Devon, where the family-run hotels and holiday parks are the foundation stones of the local economy. Passed down from generation to generation, they are more than just businesses. They are woven into the fabric of our communities. The director of one popular holiday park has been left questioning the long-term viability of their business due to the inheritance tax that will be due. This family-run business was founded over 65 years ago and employs over 180 staff in the summer season, which is a large number in a constituency such as mine that has few large employers. It uses an abundance of local suppliers and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. But I am told that when the 81-year-old Majority shareholder passes away, it is likely that the family will have to sell up completely, after at least five generations of ownership, to pay an inheritance tax liability of approximately £2.5 million. The business cannot just chop off a section of the holiday camp, sell it to pay the tax and be left with a viable business—it just does not work like that. That illustrates perfectly how this tax is not merely a financial burden; it threatens the very survival of these businesses, and the ripples will spread out across the pond with scores of people losing their jobs, which will have knock-on effects on the local economy, the community and the mental health of all those people left high and dry.

Examples such as that are why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support Amendment 42, which would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family. That is the least that this Government could do given the plethora of financial challenges these family-run businesses already face. Whatever loophole the Government were looking to close with this business property relief, they have gone way beyond that, and the implications will be an economic and personal tragedy for so many.

I could not speak today without again mentioning our family farms. I am pleased that the Government have finally listened and made the adjustment to the threshold, which will end the agony for many farmers. However, I am concerned that in areas where land prices are particularly high, such as the South Hams, the £2.5 million threshold will still be too low. There are also a significant number of farms owned by a single person rather than a couple, meaning they will not benefit from the spousal allowance. When APR was originally introduced, I surveyed all the farmers in the South Devon constituency, of which there are many hundreds: 85% of them said that they would be affected. Of those who responded, 44% said that they would have a bill of at least £300,000. The average bill was going to be £637,000 across my constituency, and the highest inheritance tax expected by one of my farms is £3 million.

I therefore support amendment 48, which would make the resulting inheritance tax liability chargeable only if agricultural land is sold or ceases to be used for farming within 10 years of the relevant transfer. I urge the Government to support new Clause 7 to ensure the relief allowance is uprated annually according to the change in the value of agricultural land. I also urge the Government, as many of my colleagues have, to consider extending the spousal allowance to siblings who co-own a farm so that they too can benefit from this relief. Why should one family be penalised because a brother and sister own a farm compared with another family where it is a husband and wife? It is incredibly old fashioned to design a policy that benefits people who are married but not people who co-own within the same family.

I hope the Government will now provide meaningful support for farmers, who have been through so much over the last 14 months, starting with a £1 billion increase in the farming budget as promised by the Liberal Democrats if we were sitting on the Government Benches. If we undermine British farming, we undermine our ability to feed the nation and, in turn, compete in an increasingly uncertain world. Our farmers have been through an agonising 14 months. They should never have been subjected to this fear and stress. It is a disgrace that the Government took more seriously a prospective revolt from their own Back Benchers than the committed, desperate and passionate campaigning of farmers, countryside organisations and rural communities right across the country for the last 14 months. This policy still retains huge unfairness, as colleagues have explained so clearly, and I urge the Government to pause and think again while a proper impact assessment of even the new APR is carried out.

I stand to speak in favour of various Lib Dem amendments and in particular new Clause 7. Farmers in this country continue to be hammered, as they were under the previous Government, by the current one. From poor funding of rural public services to botched trade deals that undercut British farmers, rural communities have been left behind, despite the industry being vital to delivering our food supply and a key pillar in our fight against climate change. Food is not some luxury or niche commodity but an essential, and an important part of our heritage and culture. In an increasingly volatile world, it is important that we recognise the value of domestic production.

Many speakers this evening have discussed problems with the Labour Government’s changes to agricultural and business property tax relief, and it is welcome that the Government have to some extent listened to that. However, in my Constituency, the key thing I hear when speaking with farmers is that the proposed changes, in their original form, were the final straw for them on top of so many other challenges and headwinds. That is why the reaction has been so strong. They face the uncertainty and impact of Brexit; trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers; constantly changing Government incentive and payment regimes; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs; labour shortages, also partly as a result of Brexit; and the dominance of large supermarkets seeking ever lower prices.

Our farmers also face rural crime, which, as Sorcha Eastwood rightly stated, has a significant impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Even with Thames Valley police’s best efforts, farms’ remoteness makes them easy targets for theft or hare coursing. Flooding has also affected many farms across my constituency, such as George Gale’s Manor farm in Appleford or Paul Cauldwell’s Dropshort farm in Drayton. Increased rainfall and a lack of river maintenance are both contributing factors to wider flooding incidents, plus run-off from new developments.

The National Farmers’ Union hustings were by far the toughest of the General Election campaign, but I have also been warmly welcomed by farmers who have been very patient and generous in explaining their trade to someone who could not have less of an agricultural background. They include Matt Lane of Grange farm, David Christensen of Lockinge estate and Alan and Richard Binnings, who put so much work into Truckfest, which, as well as being an amazing concert experience on their land, raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities each year.

I want to talk in particular about Ben Smith from Manor Road farm near Wantage. When I met him last winter to hear his challenges, he explained that he is a third-generation arable farmer. At that time, his mother was 90 years of age. She owns the farm. Ben’s big concern was that when she dies, he and his family will be significantly hit by the inheritance tax, with revenues from their arable farming barely able to cover the liabilities. At that time, his mother was saying that she would rather die than leave Ben and his sister to deal with the situation later. Ben wants his son and daughter to have the farm, but he will be in a financial mess. He might need to lose six or seven staff, some of whom have worked for him for between 10 and 45 years. Inheritance tax is a big worry to him, but he has also been hit by other increases in tax and national insurance.

All the farmers I have met have been welcoming, tolerant of my agricultural ignorance, forgiving of my vegetarianism, patient in educating me about their work and profoundly passionate about what they do. I have been surprised to find parallels between my experience of working in railways before coming to this place and farming. Both are subject to the stop-and-start whims of Government policy and the decisions of people who have little knowledge or experience of the sectors concerned and often do not take the time to listen and learn.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats are proud of our advocacy for farmers and are calling for the farming budget to be raised by £1 billion, for a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers in line with our objectives for health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and for strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances.

It is welcome that the Government have started to listen, but we must always remember that we need food, we need countryside and our farmers do so much to look after both. They deserve our support.

I extend my thanks to hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this session in particular, which I appreciate has been a topic of discussion in public and in this place over a number of months. As I have said, the Government have been listening carefully to feedback from the farming community, family businesses and their representatives. The Government are proud to represent the national interest, with strong representation for rural, semi-rural and urban constituencies. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in our Prime Minister and in this Government that there are pretty much as many Labour MPs who represent rural constituencies as there are Conservative MPs in total.

The Government are going further to protect more farms and businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. That is why we have tabled an Amendment that will increase the allowance for the 100% rate of relief from £1 million to £2.5 million.

I am aware of the hour but if I may, I will briefly respond to some questions asked by Members on both sides of the House. I thank Labour Members, including the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend Ruth Jones, and my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith), for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). It was helpful to hear from them about the positivity with which the changes announced late last year have been received, as a result of this Government’s listening and engagement, and about the renewed focus that can now be placed on the broader issues affecting the farming community—be they profitability, prices or the fiscal support that the Government will provide. We will spend our budgets in full rather than underspending by hundreds of millions, as the previous Government did. I thank Members who engaged with me on that topic in the weeks after I was appointed to this role on 1 September, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, whose engagement I really appreciated.

The Shadow Minister, Gareth Davies, and other Opposition Members asked about the figures used for the number of estates affected by the changes. Those figures are HMRC tax data. Many have also repeatedly raised the CenTax report with Ministers in recent weeks. That report, which was carried out by analysts independent from Government, came to conclusions very similar to the figures published by the Government after the Budget on the number of affected estates. That robust analysis has been published, and I and the Government stand firmly behind it.

Conservative Members mentioned investment in relation to agricultural property and business property. It is worth noting that an inheritance system that was less generous than the one that will be implemented in April was in place throughout the whole of the 1980s, and I do not believe that Conservative Members had a problem with growth and investment for businesses and farmers in the 1980s. Maybe they do think that we had significant problems with wealth creation in the 1980s, and a tax system that inhibited it, but I do not think that is the argument they are making.

On the broader impact, the OBR confirmed at the Budget that the changes are not forecast to have a significant macroeconomic impact.

I will come shortly to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Charlie Maynard, mentioned the costs of administrating the tax changes. Those costs were published in a tax impact and information note, alongside the changes: £9.2 million is the figure that the Government published. On the sustainable farming incentive, which he and others mentioned, he may have missed the update that Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided last week, which the NFU said showed

“real ambition for a thriving agriculture industry”.

The hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and others, mentioned that the allowance is only transferrable between spouses. That is in line with the long-standing approach to inheritance tax. The inheritance tax nil rate band and the residence nil rate band are also only transferrable between spouses and civil partners.

rose—

I am just going to respond to this point. For siblings, and for co-owners who are not spouses but who jointly own a farm—the example raised and that set out on the Government website—it is still the case that each individual has a £2.5 million allowance that they can use. That means that a farm that is jointly owned, even if not by spouses, cannot be transferred between spouses but can still be passed on, on an individual basis, up to £2.5 million.

A range of Opposition Members raised the question of whether the Government should set different thresholds for different parts of the country. I say gently, particularly to Conservative Members, that there are very different property prices across the country, yet in the 14 years they were in power, they did not set different inheritance thresholds for different parts of the country.

I look forward to further contributions on this topic during the passage of the Bill. Overall, the Bill, including the clauses debated today, is an essential part of the Government’s broader economic plan to manage our public finances well, to bring down borrowing in every year, to fund our public services, and to provide the underpinnings for higher growth and living standards across the country. We have the right plan for the country, and this Bill helps us to deliver it. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendments 3 to 23, 31 to 36, 40 to 48, and new clauses 1, 6, 7 and 17, and I urge it to support Clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 344, Noes 181.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.