Family Farming in Devon

Debate between Geoffrey Cox and Mark Hendrick

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

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

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

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

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order.

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