Farming and Inheritance Tax

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we recognise that agricultural and business property relief play an important role in supporting family farms, but the full unlimited exemption from inheritance tax has simply become unsustainable. The four most recent years-worth of data make clear why. The data shows that a very small number of agricultural property relief claimants, including those who claim business property relief too, benefited from a very significant amount of relief. In total, 47% of the Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top 7% of claims. To be clear what that means, I will put it another way. For every 14 or so estates, the top one among them claimed half the total relief.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Let me tell the Minister what concerns me most. There has not been an impact assessment, but if the major driver for the Government, whether we accept it or not, was to raise some money from this source, why were other more effective mechanisms not used, such as business roll-over relief, where a business could be sold in another context and rolled over into buying the land, deferring capital gains tax? If that mechanism had been used, the money would have been taken from much wealthier people who were not actually producing food in the first place. Now, we are capturing a massive proportion of small family farms completely unnecessarily, because due consideration of better alternatives was not done by the Minister.

[James Murray]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect personally, that we carefully considered how to calibrate the policy to ensure that significant relief from inheritance tax is still available to family farms, while at the same time fixing the public finances in as fair a way as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I have confidence in the way in which we have calibrated the policy. As I said to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), it has balanced the need to retain significant, generous provision of inheritance tax relief for family farms with ensuring that, at the same time, we fix the public finances in the fairest way possible.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. In view of the point that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), will he not consider, at the very least, looking at some dispensation for farmers above a certain age, given the lack of time that they will have to plan for this intervention? The truth is that someone who is near retirement age will be faced with the prospect of 10 years of all their projected profits being eaten up by this tax, which will mean that the farm cannot go to the next generation. The hon. Gentleman must surely look at some mitigations to deal with that reality for so many farmers who are concentrated in that older age group.

[James Murray]

We know that individual circumstances will vary. Any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should obviously consult an accountant or financial adviser. We would not know, from a thumbnail sketch, whether that person had any inherited nil rate bands, what their liabilities were, what decisions they had made about gifting, and so on. A huge number of factors will play into this, and it is right for individuals to seek specific advice. Things that are said in this Chamber may be creating undue anxiety, when people should be looking into the detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a privilege to contribute to the debate. I represent Salisbury and south Wiltshire, which has a large number of farmers. A large number of them visited me here in the House of Commons and, a week later, I had the largest meeting of farmers I have ever had in Salisbury. They were gravely disappointed and concerned about the implications of this Budget measure. It was a shock, because it was widely expected that this measure would not be on the table when the Labour Government came in.

One of the greatest privileges of my career was to spend most of the past eight years—six and a half of them—in the Treasury in various roles. I was PPS to a Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and then I was Economic Secretary and Chief Secretary. I understand the dynamic between spending Departments and the Treasury in the run-up to a Budget, and I have a serious degree of sympathy for the Ministers who were in DEFRA in the run-up to this Budget, but when APR and BPR were put on the table in front of me and my ministerial colleagues at numerous points during our time in the Treasury, we said no.

I acknowledge—I am trying to be as reasoned and as reasonable as I can—that other choices would have had to be made, and I recognise the difficulty of those choices. We faced difficulties when we came into government in 2010 with a 10% deficit. This Government had a different set of challenges, although I would dispute some of the numbers. However, I want to keep my remarks focused on the measure at hand.

The reason I would never have wanted to progress the removal of APR and BPR was that that policy was the product of a technical desktop economist’s view of tax raising. It was not an option when one took into account the reality of what would actually happen to the rural economy and the implications for farming. A number of colleagues have rehearsed excellent examples where farms of quite modest size but serious capital value would be massively compromised by that policy, even with an opportunity to repay that inheritance tax interest-free over 10 years, as the Chancellor said to the Select Committee. I acknowledge that—it is standard practice for this sort of relief—but given the profitability of the typical farm, it is just not a realistic prospect.

I have had some dealings in the past with the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for him—I do not want to embarrass him by saying anything more. He has a large number of issues to deal with, and I think all of us in this House want to see some clarity around the land use framework, and how we reconcile the question of where we build more homes with the challenges of renewable energy. However, we have to keep in focus the core function of our farmers, which is to produce food. I recognise the point made in an intervention earlier, and I am not suggesting that the Government are going to say, “We are going to have solar farms everywhere,” but we do need to have a coherent farming policy as a whole and a land use strategy that people understand.

The issue with this policy is that it is going to decimate the number of family farms unless there is a significant increase in thresholds, there is an age limit on when the policy applies, or an alternative tax mechanism like business asset roll-over relief is examined by the Treasury. Unless those changes happen—and there is time to consider those changes before the legislation comes before this House, which will probably be at the end of next year—we in this country are going to be in real trouble with the legacy of this decision. I urge the Minister’s colleagues in the Treasury to think again and come back with better proposals for their colleague.