Clause 1

Debate between David Smith and Robbie Moore

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

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.

[Robbie Moore]

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?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between David Smith and Robbie Moore

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.

Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.

As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.

[David Smith]

All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?