Agricultural Property Relief

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and John Glen

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I had put in to speak, but when I saw the attendance in the Chamber, I thought I would exercise a self-denying ordinance. That seems to have been counterproductive, so I will take a couple of minutes to drill down into some of the underlying assumptions in relation to this issue.

Let us bear in mind that there are three ways in which agricultural land can be passed on in succession. It can be relieved under agricultural property relief, under business property relief, or under a combination of the two. Hitherto, that has offered executry practitioners and others a range of different options. Frankly, as long as the land qualified as agricultural farming land, it did not really matter which route was taken.

In fact, any value was pretty academic because there was 100% relief in any event. I suspect that is why the HMRC guidance in relation to business property relief says that for a relief claimed under BPR, the book value, if I can use that shorthand, should be used. There is then no need to have the full market value. The letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Committee on 15 November last year made no reference to those estates that passed on land under BPR only. To my mind, it is almost certainly the case that a large number of other farms will be caught by the measure that have not been included in Treasury calculations.

That view is reinforced today by the publication of the report by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, is a non-departmental public body of DEFRA. The body is levy funded, but the press release says that it is not for it to say whether inheritance tax should be exigible in these circumstances—it just wishes to inform the debate with its analysis. Its analysis is that 42,204 farms out of 54,938 of 50 hectares or more will be affected.

That must surely give the Treasury some cause for concern, and a basis on which it could pause the change. We still have a long time to go; it will not be in the Finance Bill until October or November of this year. Where an element of doubt exists, it would surely be sensible for everyone concerned if the Treasury were to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the farming unions and others.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely fair assessment. Does he acknowledge that the Treasury is full of capable civil servants and Ministers who have a number of other options available to them? No doubt the argument will be that there is a black hole to fill, but even if one does accept that, there are still better options overall for the agricultural and rural communities that serve us across this country.

[Mr Carmichael]

There are other options. On another day, with more time available, we might be able to look at what the tax take will be for the changes. The Secretary of State, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, said that they were not going to be a problem because most people will avoid them. In fact, there will be opportunities for that to be the case.

The underlying concern here, which the Minister has the opportunity to address, is whether the Government still adhere to the belief that there is a public policy interest in ensuring the transition of family farms down the generations. If that was the original basis on which the reliefs were introduced, and if it remains the policy objective to this day, the figures need to be looked at more carefully. The thresholds could be increased or there could be a 10-year clawback—whatever the solution may be; the industry is full of ideas. There are any number of people who will come forward with suggestions for the things that at least some people in Government say they sought to achieve by making the change.

If—the Prime Minister was not very clear about this; well, he was clear that he was not bothered—the object was to avoid the super-rich using land to shelter their wealth, there are better ways of doing that. The Minister will get full co-operation from the farming unions and communities, but in order to have that, there has to be a dialogue. At the moment we are getting nothing from the Treasury. If he takes no other message back to the Treasury today, he should take this: the Chancellor must meet the farming unions.