Clause 1

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke]

Absolutely. There is no doubt that the agricultural supply chain has been affected by the torrid 14 months of uncertainty caused by the family farm tax. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak consistently of growth, but their damaging policies have crippled family farms. Some 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled investment, 10% have downsized their operations, and 21% intend to do so before April this year.

Our farmers pride themselves on being resilient and getting on with the job, but the long-awaited and delayed Batters farming profitability review summed up the impact of the family farm tax well: it stated that the sector was “bewildered and frightened”. Following the Government’s last-minute concession, I am pleased that some farmers—such as David, who farms in Compton Dundon in Glastonbury and Somerton—are now fully exempt, but this comes after more than a year of sleepless nights, and we know that David is not alone. If the reforms are expected to raise only around £500 million a year, why have the Government been so willing to impose this level of disruption and uncertainty on family farms for a relatively small return to the Exchequer?

The Government’s whole attitude toward family farming communities has been hugely disappointing, to say the least. At the end of last week, after months of silence, we finally heard the details of the 2026 sustainable farming incentive, but despite this announcement, England is still on course to be an outlier in Europe, because English farmers will not receive any direct support in fulfilling their primary mission and motivation, which is to produce food. After being taken for granted and ignored by the Conservatives for so long, it is no wonder that half of British farmers have little confidence in this Government’s vision for farming, and many do not believe that this Government take food security seriously at all.

I want to be clear that although the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this concession, and although raising the thresholds will go some way towards mitigating the devastating impacts on the industry, this does not negate the year of stress and anxiety that farmers have endured, and many will still be hit by this tax. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the constituency, run their businesses in multi-generational partnerships or extended family partnerships. It is totally outdated that this Government believe that farm businesses are managed by married couples. So many businesses will not benefit from the combined spousal allowance of up to £5 million, and it seems grossly unfair that if two farms are valued the same, one could be free of IHT, while the other could be landed with a huge tax burden.

Additionally, although the anti-forestalling rules remain in place, they deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way. The rules also put a massive burden on those who are over 75. The Liberal Democrats are clear that this is an unfair measure, which is why we have proposed new clause 7. It would ensure that a review of the provisions takes place.

Although the Environment Secretary has declared that there will be no more changes to the family farm tax, I hope that the Government have recognised the scale of the damage that they have done to British agriculture. British farmers produce a public good; they are the linchpins of our country’s food security and therefore our national security. In an ever more volatile world, this is more important than ever. This Government must not let British farmers down again.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in favour of Government amendment 24 and the associated amendments that will increase the 100% allowance cap for agricultural property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. In December, I believe I closed my last speech on this issue with a plea for the Government to listen to my more reasonable rural colleagues and to change course. I said that it was not too late. It was a plea, but for many of my constituents it was a prayer, and much to the relief of many farmers, it was a prayer answered on 23 December.

It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for seeing sense, as it would be not to thank the Members from across the House who have raised this issue consistently over the last year. While this amendment falls short of the full U-turn I would have preferred, today I will vote with the many rural Labour MPs who lobbied Ministers for many months to see this change. They may not have joined me in the No Lobby to vote against Budget resolution 50, but I have no doubt that we would not have seen a change of course without what I believe the Government have called their “constructive engagement”. I know what many of them did, and I hope in time that their constituents and their farmers know what they did, too.

I regret being placed in a position where I voted against the Government, but not to do so would have broken a promise. However, I believe the Government had more than ample time to reconsider this policy. To see colleagues whipped to vote for the measure days before the Government proposed amendments that some colleagues had called for over a year ago caused unnecessary pain. On that, I hope lessons are learned. Now, Whip or no Whip, I look forward to supporting this Government in their important task of helping all working people thrive.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I rise to address clause 62 and schedule 12. I, for one, cannot believe the self-congratulatory tone of so many contributions from across this Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), pointed out that Labour Members had five opportunities to change these rules, and only one Member—the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—voted to do so.

However, the initial change to APR in 2024 was described by NFU Scotland as

“devastating to the vast majority of farms and crofts”.

The concerns raised by farmers across Scotland, including a significant number in my constituency, were ignored by a Labour Government who appeared to be completely blind to the fundamentals of rural life and rural communities. When defending the decision in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Committee’s first report on the Government’s vision for farming, published in May last year, the UK Government said:

“Ministers from multiple Government departments have had several meetings with agricultural organisations on this matter since Autumn Budget 2024, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers’ Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Farmers’ Union of Wales”.

Here is the killer:

“After listening, the Government believes the approach and timescale set out for these reforms is an appropriate one.”

In the 2025 Budget, just a few months ago, the spousal transfer allowances were changed, and this was welcomed, but there was nothing further for worried farmers. As in so many areas in which this Government have been forced to U-turn, why did they not listen from the start? Is everything we say on these Benches to be dismissed as political rhetoric? Was it arrogance? Look where this has led—to a Prime Minister and a Government regarded by the public as the worst ever. We do not need a Government who listen later, if they feel like it. We need a Government who listen from the start. We need an end to the sound of screeching tyres from the Government machine as it performs another U-turn that could have been avoided. If

“food security is national security”,

as Labour said in its manifesto, why did Labour feel it was acceptable to make farmers face insecurity about their livelihoods, and the country face food insecurity in the face of a growing international crisis? After the recently announced threshold changes, it was very disappointing to see the failure of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to offer an apology to the people who produce our food.

The anti-forestalling clause in the Bill continues to pose a perverse incentive. It penalises anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a substantial IHT bill and potentially triggering capital gains tax. If no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That creates an appalling situation where terminally ill or elderly farmers, especially those unlikely to live for a further seven years, face perverse choices: keep the farm and hope to die before April this year; sell the farm, with a potential loss of food production to the nation; or transfer the farm in the usual way and saddle their children with a huge tax bill. No set of tax measures should—nor should this Bill —create such a situation. Of course these IHT rules apply elsewhere, but this is where we see Labour failing to understand what it is dealing with. A working farm is like no other business. What it produces concerns everyone, not some segment or niche area of the economy.

In conclusion, the NFU Scotland president, Andrew Connon, stated:

“The anti-forestalling clause, in particular, is morally indefensible. No tax policy should ever place a terminally ill farmer in the position of being financially better off dead than alive.”

The House will have an opportunity later on to protect farm production from that perverse incentive; that is what my amendment would achieve. The amendment before us tonight gives us an opportunity to change this. If we fail to do that tonight, I will seek to bring my amendment back on Report.