Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief

Debate between James Murray and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Let me join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions —including the advice from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), on what to expect in my new role from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

As many Members have rightly highlighted, there has been a great deal of speculation in recent weeks about potential changes to taxation in the Budget, including to the reliefs that we are debating today. Hon Members will understand—indeed, many of them acknowledged in their speeches that they understand—that I cannot add to that speculation. The Budget is on 30 October, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out any changes to the tax system then, in the normal way. However, ahead of that, I welcome this opportunity to hear Members’ views on this matter.

Let me start by briefly setting out the context for this Budget. Following the spending audit in July, the Chancellor has been clear that difficult decisions lie ahead on spending, welfare and taxation to address the £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the previous Government. Decisions on how to address that will be taken at the Budget in the round. It is crucial that we get the public finances back on a firm footing so that we can restore economic stability. On those foundations, we will boost investment, increase growth across the UK and improve public services. That is the prize ahead and how we will make people across Britain better off.

Let me turn to how inheritance tax operates in the UK tax system. Inheritance tax, as other Members have said, is a wealth transfer tax and applies to the estate of the deceased. Transfers made in the seven years before death are also taken into account. The estates of all individuals benefit from a £325,000 nil-rate band. The residence nil-rate band is a further £175,000 and is available to those passing on a qualifying residence on death to their direct descendants, such as children or grandchildren. That means that, altogether, qualifying estates can pass on up to £500,000. Furthermore, the qualifying estate of a surviving spouse or civil partner can pass on up to £1 million without an inheritance tax liability, because any unused nil-rate band or residence nil-rate band is transferable to the surviving spouse or civil partner.

Above those thresholds, the headline rate of inheritance tax is 40%, but it is important to remember that that rate is charged only on the part of the estate that is above the threshold, and after the application of reliefs. That is obviously the subject of today’s debate, so let me turn first to business property relief. That relief is a long-standing part of the inheritance tax system. It is designed to ensure that businesses need not be broken up or sold on the death of an owner in order to pay an inheritance tax liability. That reflects concerns that there may not always be enough liquid assets in the business to pay the tax. Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the relief generally applies to unquoted shares and interests in a business. It also applies to shares designated as “not listed” on a “recognised stock exchange”, such as shares that are quoted on AIM, as mentioned by the shadow Minister. The rate of business property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances. Until March 1992, the maximum rate of the relief was 50% and there was a lower rate of 30% alongside that. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the cost of the relief has risen from £685 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £1.3 billion in 2023-24.

Agricultural property relief is also a long-standing part of the system. It has a similar purpose to business property relief, although the main benefit is to ensure that relief is available when land is let to tenant farmers, as we heard from various hon. Members today. This is largely because owner-occupiers of agricultural land also qualify for business property relief. Again, the rate of agricultural property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances, and as with business property relief, lower rates existed before 1992. The cost of this relief has risen from £320 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £365 million in 2023-24.

There are many different views on these reliefs. Stakeholders, including Family Business UK and the Country Land and Business Association, have argued strongly against any prospect of the reliefs being abolished. Other organisations are in favour of changes to the reliefs, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggesting that a cap on such reliefs could allow those passing on small farms or businesses to be taken out of inheritance tax, while preventing agricultural and business investments from being used to avoid it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I thank for his contribution, said that there may be a case for certain reforms to agricultural property relief. Of course, the previous Government had views on these reliefs. I understand from reports in the Telegraph that the previous Government considered abolishing these reliefs as part of reforms to the system.

I welcome the opportunity today to hear from Members on their views, particularly on agricultural property relief, but also on issues relating to farmers and their constituents more widely. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) rightly highlighted the importance of food security for this Government and its importance in our policy making. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in nudging me gently, to quote the shadow Minister—spoke eloquently about the importance of farming in his constituency and in the economy of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) spoke of some of the wider challenges facing the farming community in recent years, not least energy bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is proving to be a very effective constituency MP already, raising a number of important issues on behalf of those he represents, as well as drawing attention to the wider significance of having economic stability and security for farmers and everyone in his constituency.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister reminds us—it is our fault for doing this—that we have focused very much on the family farm as the unit of concern, because that is what concerns most of our constituents. However, a lot of agricultural land is, in fact, owned by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am a member. The RSPB is never going to have a succession event, to join the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) in using that expression. The consequence of abolition could be that two farms right next door to each other—one owned by a charity or an institution of that sort, and the other owned by a family—would be left having to farm in very different economic circumstances. Is that really fair?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point, although he presupposes he knows what will happen to agricultural property relief, which, as I set out earlier, I cannot comment on further. He will have to wait a couple of weeks, perhaps, to have further conversations about what the Government will do in this space. I thank him and all hon. Members for their comments today, because it has been an interesting debate. As we have heard, the issue generates some strong views among many of our constituents and the Members present, who represent them.

I understand that there are many different views on what the Government should do, and the debate has allowed me to hear them. As always, the Government welcome all opinions and keep all taxes under review. However, I return to my earlier point: the Chancellor will, of course, announce changes to the tax system at the Budget. There is not long to wait.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Alistair Carmichael

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us that update from the Treasury Committee about what the Chancellor has been saying. Again, we can see the Chancellor being reckless by talking about merging national insurance with income tax without having a second thought for what impact that would have on hard-pressed taxpayers, particularly pensioners. Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance on their earnings and would be hit by a tax increase as a result of national insurance and income tax being merged. That is another example of how reckless these plans are, and how reckless it is for Treasury Ministers to refuse to stand up and explain how their plans would be funded.

The public deserves to know. If Ministers vote against our new clause or they refuse to come clean, then the British people will have it confirmed, yet again, that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy, public finances or the finances of households across our country.

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

Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans—surely it is long overdue that it should be Sir Nigel, but we will go with Mr Evans for today.

I stand to move new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Hon. Members will see that the effect of new clause 2 would be fairly short in its compass. It would compel the Treasury to report to this House its forecasts of the change to the number of people who are set to pay national insurance contributions as a result of the thresholds for payment remaining frozen until 2028, instead of increasing in line with the consumer prices index, which would be the case otherwise. The Chancellor and other Ministers have spoken today about the pride the Government take in what they are doing. In the interests of transparency, the Government should have no difficulty accepting new clause 2. I am sure it is merely an inadvertent omission that those measures are not part of the Bill already.

It is apparent that comments made by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others about the idea of abolishing national insurance altogether have started a debate, as we have seen this afternoon. It is a substantial commitment to make—£46 billion—and we do not yet know where that money would come from. That is maybe not the novelty that it used to be, certainly before the mini-Budget. However, it offers us an opportunity to think a little bit about the nature of national insurance as a tax, because it is quite distinct in its composition and operation.

In practical terms, functionally, national insurance is more or less like any other tax, in as much as money is paid into the Exchequer and fills the coffers, and then is spent as the Government or Governments see fit—in relation to health, policing, transport, Ministers’ legal fees or whatever else it is going to be.

As a matter of intent and purpose, however, national insurance is identifiably different from the other taxes we pay. More than any other levy, it is the symbol of our shared obligations—what we owe each other as a society and as communities in support throughout our lives. The point of national insurance is that we pool and share resources geographically and generationally. We pay our stamp on each payslip, trusting that, when the time comes for us to retire, someone else will continue to pay taxes that will fund our pensions.

Let us remember that the roots of this tax are in Lloyd George’s Budget, and that the introduction of national insurance came with the introduction of the pension. That is why we have the legacy of the link between national insurance and pensions, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in an intervention. That is significant. These are matters that must be clarified before we undertake a change of this sort.

At the heart of any healthy liberal democratic society, there is the idea that we have lasting obligations to one another. We have obligations to those we know, to those we do not know, to generations that are older than us, and to those who are yet to be born. We can be bound by policies with which we disagree, and sometimes we must pay taxes for things that we dislike or that we feel we do not need. That is the system in which the national insurance contribution has a demonstrably significant and different impact than other taxes. It is part of the tapestry of government and public life in this country.

This is perhaps just pulling at a thread, but the Minister and, indeed, people in all parts of the House would be well advised to consider exactly what they may be unravelling by pulling at this thread. Full transparency from the Government on the effect of freezing national insurance contributions in the way that has been proposed should be an important part of this debate as it proceeds.