Agricultural Property Relief

Ann Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to Agricultural Property Relief.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interest as a tenant dairy farmer. In Wales, 80% of our land is given over to farming, and our food foundation sector—including businesses that produce, process, manufacture and wholesale food and drink goods—is a vital part of our economy, hitting a turnover of £9.3 billion in 2023. In fact, Cabinet Ministers in the Labour Welsh Government have lauded Wales as a “food nation”, but the UK Government’s decision in the autumn Budget to change the agricultural property relief and business property relief will have a real effect on food, sustainable food production and food security in Wales.

Business property relief and agricultural property relief were introduced in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively to ensure that a farm or family business could continue trading after the owner’s death, protecting it from being sold and broken up. However, on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Labour UK Government intend to change APR and BPR conditions from 6 April 2026. From that date, 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property, and 50% thereafter. The proposals equate to landowners paying inheritance tax at a rate of 20% of estate value, with the threshold from which they pay being dependent on individual circumstances. That tax is payable in instalments over 10 years without interest.

Combining APR and BPR under those changes means that the asset value of the tools and the machinery necessary to operate a farming business are affected, as well as the agricultural land and property, alongside any diversification activities that the UK Government have told farmers to explore to increase their income. The UK Government contend that those changes will affect around 500 estates a year, and that small family farms will not be affected, but organisations within the agricultural sector say otherwise.

The National Farmers Union calculated that 75% of commercial family farms will fall above the £1 million threshold across the UK. The Farmers’ Union of Wales, using other figures, estimated that essentially all farms that produce nearly 90% of agricultural output in Wales could be liable under the changes. In fact, Eirian Humphreys of LHP Accountants, a large accountancy firm across south and west Wales, told me that of the 51 farming clients who have inquired about those changes so far, 46—around 90%—will have to pay inheritance tax if they die after 6 April 2026.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter before the House again. On the subject of the 500 estates, can we all agree that that only relates to the number of estates that claim under APR? It does not take account of the effect of APR and BPR together. In fact, BPR valuations are taken at book value, not at market value, so the number of estates that are liable must inevitably be massively greater than 500.

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely. We all know that is the case.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is shaking his head. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would join me in inviting him to intervene to explain why that fact is wrong.

[Ann Davies]

I do not know whether the Minister would like to do so now or at the end. It is up to him.

[Torsten Bell]

I will at some length explain why the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman just made—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members wish to make an intervention, they should stand to do so. It is up to the person who is speaking whether to accept an intervention.

I was going to say this at the end of Ann Davies’s speech, but I will say it now. This debate is oversubscribed, so I will put a time limit on speeches. Members should make short interventions, because interventions will mean less time for those people who have put in to speak.

[Ann Davies]

Of the clients that Eirian mentioned, five of them will not come under the tax liability because they have very small farms with off-farm income, they have transferred their farms following ill health, or they have significant debt that offsets the value of their farms.

It is clear that the assessments of the impact of the changes on working farms across the UK, on the wider economy and on the wider food supply chain are inadequate. The data that we have is deficient; it includes smallholdings and non-working farms. Data based on the basic payment scheme or on agricultural output would provide a fairer representation of the situation for genuine farmers.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is speaking remarkably well about the challenges that this Government policy will create for farmers in Wales, in Scotland and across the UK. Research by Scottish Land and Estates shows that the average UK farm size is 217 acres and the average agricultural land value in Great Britain is £8,200 per acre, which means that the average working farm in the UK is worth about £1.8 million. Does that not show the flaw in the Government’s argument? This policy is not attacking the richest landowners; it is attacking working farms the length and breadth of the UK.

[Ann Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I totally agree. Indeed, I will give further details about that issue later in my speech.

It is also clear that industry experts were not consulted on the changes prior to the announcement, even though consultation could have led to a fairer and more appropriate solution that is not detrimental to family farms or the wider industry.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech on an extremely important topic. She will know that my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury borders Wales, and that there are many family farmers in north Wales who are deeply concerned about the consequences of this policy. Does she agree that it will impact not only farmers but the wider agricultural-industrial community, including businesses in my constituency that work alongside Welsh farmers in north Wales, such as Meadow Foods in Chester?

[Ann Davies]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and perhaps I should mention that Meadow Foods is the company that takes the milk from our farm—so we are that close to one another. I will say more about that issue as I move through my speech.

The lack of any data on the particular effects of the changes in Wales is a genuine problem. The available data, especially the data used by the Treasury, is a combination of Wales data and England data, or is UK-level data; it is not Welsh data. That is why organisations in Wales have to make their own calculations about the impact in Wales. The Country Land and Business Association calculated that an average 250-acre dairy farm in Wales could be hit by a £119,000 inheritance tax charge, while the average 250-acre livestock farm would expect an £85,000 charge. However, those figures do not include the asset value of diversified enterprise, meaning, of course, that they could be higher still.

It is crucial that farmers, policymakers and other stakeholders in Wales have accurate data to understand the real impacts of the changes within the specific context of Wales. The FUW called for the Wales-specific impact assessment to be modelled with working farms only, as the Welsh Government—the Welsh Labour Government—did during their 2023 sustainable farming scheme analysis. Today, I reiterate the call for the Government to implement that assessment, as my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I have continuously called for since October. The arguments have not changed.

There is evidence that the changes will not make even an iota of difference to the Treasury. In fact, modelling from the Confederation of British Industry Economics found that the changes to BPR will actually cost the Exchequer £1.25 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30. It is unclear how they work towards Labour’s mission of growth, as industry organisations have come across numerous cases of farms and businesses delaying investments, putting orders on hold and preparing to reduce staffing. Let us not forget that each £1 a farmer spends generates another £9 in that community. What other rural industry does that?

Undermining local farmers and agricultural producers risks missing out on crucial opportunities to shorten our supply chains and to improve our food resilience. We currently produce 60% of the food that we need here in the UK and, when our food imports already outnumber exports by £33.2 billion, causing a reduction in the food that we produce will only increase our vulnerability to factors outside our control—the damaging consequences of which we have already felt in the energy market.

There is also a consensus that the changes do not address the initial concerns about non-farmers investing in land to avoid inheritance tax. For those with new money from capital gains made in the non-agricultural economy, there will continue to be a huge incentive to buy agricultural land, given that the value of that land above the announced threshold will face inheritance tax charges at half the rate of other assets.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, if the Treasury had considered increasing the threshold and raising the overall rate for very wealthy landowners to 40%, it might have achieved the outcome it was looking for? I put on record that I would not have gone down the route that it has anyway.

[Ann Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am coming on to solutions in a minute; I hope that the Minister will listen to my proposed options.

Extending the existing scope of APR to land managed under environmental agreements with or on behalf of, for example, the Government or public bodies also suggests that foundations and large companies could buy up land sold to pay inheritance tax, without being subject to it in the same way. We have a train of people in west Wales who are already buying land for planting trees, carbon offsetting and solar and wind farms.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I find the notion of people buying and selling land purely for fiscal purposes abhorrent. I come from a farming family. My father was broke. He had to sell most of the land. There is not a day that goes by in which I do not look at the fields and regret that my family parted with it. The point I am making is that there is an emotional attachment between the farming family and the land. That is quite different from buying or selling a house, shares or a holiday home in Spain—it is quite different.

[Ann Davies]

As someone who has lived and worked the land all my life, I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is something that is within our soul; it is not just a trading issue.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech. Given that we are asking farmers, who are already under so much emotional and financial pressure, to be even more active participants in helping us to mitigate climate change and restore nature, does she agree that it is not the time to add to their stress and risk losing their deep knowledge of their land, which has been passed from generation to generation?

[Ann Davies]

I totally agree. Nobody understands those fields better than the farmer who has worked that land. They know where those wet corners are and they know where they should not tread during certain times. The sustainable farming scheme—the SFS—is coming out in Wales next year, and it is about nature restoration, so I absolutely agree.

Estate agents in west Wales are already seeing increased investor interest in purchasing farms following the autumn Budget. Selling land to pay an inheritance tax bill will inevitably hit tenant farmers because the £1 million threshold will hit asset-rich estates. Around 30% of land in Wales is farmed under some sort of tenancy agreement and, although some is local authority-owned, much is owned by private landlords. The Tenant Farmers Association anticipates that more insecure agricultural tenancies will be terminated to allow land to be sold to avoid taxes on death. Other landlords are reducing the lengths of term offered to tenants, who were expecting longer leases, so that farms are more readily sellable in case of tax change.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Tenant farmers on Ynys Môn are expected to be impacted by the change to APR because landowners there will have no option but to sell their farms to cover the additional cost. The landowners have a good relationship with their tenants but they have no choice but to sell, leaving generational farmers to lose their homes, businesses and future, with long-lasting effects on the rural community. Does my hon. Friend agree that the realities of agriculture in Wales, including for tenant farmers, must be fully considered by the UK Government in a Wales-specific impact assessment?

[Ann Davies]

Diolch yn fawr. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I should add that the wider economy will lose another vital source of food production. If that land is taken, it will never go back into food production.

My hon. Friend mentioned the effect on Wales, and there is a knock-on effect on the Welsh language: 43% of those involved in agriculture in Wales speak Welsh. Keeping our farming communities alive is key to moving towards the Welsh Labour Government’s target of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers in 2050. There is real worry—farming constituents have told me, with an eye on what it means for their own children, that they are concerned about the impact of the changes on future food production by Welsh-speaking families in areas of Wales already facing depopulation.

The families behind farming businesses are important to this debate. They are not just figures; they are people—people such as Richard Twose of Maenhir, who runs a 700-acre farm of 400 Holstein dairy cows and 300 pedigree Lleyn ewes with his parents, brother and children. APR and BPR changes have blown apart the family’s succession plans. They may now be forced to transfer the parents’ share in the farm and hope that they live for another seven years, or else the family will face a big tax burden on top of their business debt. Just yesterday I heard that, to add to the family’s worries and concerns, Richard’s father had passed away suddenly over Christmas.

The APR and BPR changes do not appear proportionate, in many ways. Inflation has already eroded the nil rate tax band of £325,000, which has been frozen since 2009 and is set to remain frozen until 2030. When APR and BPR were introduced, the nil rate band covered 56 acres of farmland; today, it covers 29 acres.

How the changes apply is not fair because the particularities—who someone shares the farm with, which tools or machinery they own or have hired, how much business debt they have—have a direct impact on their inheritance tax bill. Although the Government have said that married couples and their descendants can benefit from up to £3 million in tax relief, in reality tax experts are quoting figures that vary between £2 million and £4 million, based on different scenarios. We must remember that the Chancellor stated in October that the starting point for calculations is £1 million.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Diolch yn fawr—thank you—to the hon. Member for giving way. Farmers in my constituency say to me that their problem is the threshold. The on-paper values of their farms—often several million pounds, even if the farmer makes no actual surplus income from the farm—would take them well into being caught by this policy. But the current situation is not working either, because non-farmers bought up more than half the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023.

One local farmer told me that a 350-acre farm in Suffolk was bought by a merchant banker from London who had not even seen the farm and was clearly not intent on farming. Does the hon. Member agree that although we need the Government to increase the threshold, those arguing for the status quo are not doing farmers justice either?

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely. I am coming to my solutions, so I hope the Treasury will listen. I have three solutions that I think would work, because there are alternatives to this policy. The first is that abolishing capital business asset rollover relief could have provided a more targeted measure to tackle wealthy individuals buying agricultural land to avoid tax. That is the big one.

Secondly, taxing assets at the point of selling, rather than at the point of passing to another generation, would be a fairer measure to keep family farms. Thirdly, modifying existing proposals could double the zero-rate band and significantly increase the threshold, while allowing a shorter period than seven years for potentially exempt transfers. I have an additional comment on that. Do any of us have the right to live for seven years? That, my friends, is really not within our gift. Those are a few solutions from expert organisations in the sector, which could have proposed their solutions before the Government made their decision. That underlines again the importance of proper consultation with stakeholders.

To sum up, the APR and BPR changes have come at an already difficult time for farmers, with high costs of production, adverse weather and marketplace volatility taking their toll. Working farms that have been at the heart of Welsh communities for generations will suffer. As a constituent told me,

“Every farmer deserves the right to security of the farm they own or rent.”

Farms are not businesses but family legacies, vital for our rural economy and key to preserving our Welsh-speaking culture. Plaid Cymru supports closing loopholes that allow billionaire landowners to avoid paying their fair share, but this one-size-fits-all approach ignores the unique challenges of Welsh farming. That is why it is so important that the UK Government implement a Wales-specific impact assessment that reflects the realities of agriculture in Wales.

A petition calling for the UK Government not to change inheritance tax relief for working farms has reached more than 146,000 signatories, and is being debated here on 10 February—put that in the diary, folks! It is clear that the public agree that it is time for the Government to listen to farmers, conduct a proper analysis and rethink this damaging policy before it is too late.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Stringer. First, I want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I appreciate their words, interventions and speeches. This is so important for food security but for us in Wales it is also, as has been mentioned, about the Welsh language and our culture. As I mentioned in my speech, there are alternatives that could bring further taxation into the Treasury and, more importantly, secure our food-producing farms for future generations. I have to be honest, I am really disappointed with the response we have had from the Government and the Treasury today. It is not what I was hoping to hear.

The issue affects my constituency of Caerfyrddin—I will say it again so Members can tune in to the pronunciation, although I thank everyone for trying—where 60% of residents live rurally. It affects all rural constituencies, of all political colours. We are here to represent our constituents and I ask kindly if we can do that with integrity, purpose and fairness. We need to have a Welsh impact assessment of the APR and BPR and I call again on the Government to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to Agricultural Property Relief.