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.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I struggle to be brief, so excuse me if I compensate with bluntness, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a lifelong Labour supporter, a Labour activist of 20 years, a former councillor and chief whip on a Labour group, and although I currently have the Labour Whip suspended, people should be under no illusion about where my loyalties lie.

I knew before the election in July ’24 that this Government would not have an easy job. I believe that there is too much to do: many broken services and not enough money to fix them. I also know that the choice at the ballot box was between a party that subjected this country to politically motivated austerity or a Labour Government who would invest in the future. I believe that still means tough decisions on spending and tax—tough decisions that our Treasury team have not ducked. I do not find it credible that the Conservatives, who were last in government, failed to tackle backlogs in the NHS, cut back on early intervention and family support, and failed to fix the housing crisis, yet they complain about the benefits bill, like those things are not all linked.

Today I will support the Bill to progress to the next stage—the Government need to set a Budget, and there are many measures in the Bill that will benefit Cumbria—but let me be clear: Whip or no Whip, as the Bill progresses I will not be supporting the agricultural inheritance tax proposals. I want a full U-turn. I have previously set out why I cannot and will not be moved to a position where I break my word to farmers in my community.

My advice to Ministers is to take note of my more reasonable colleagues on the Government Benches. They have been increasingly vocal on this issue, and it does not look like they are going to stop soon. Ministers must look at the anti-foreclosure clause in the Bill, recognise the deep discomfort it is causing across rural Britain, and change course. It really is not too late.

Oral Answers to Questions

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

4. What progress she has made on updating the Green Book.

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

12. What comparative assessment she has made of the potential impact of rules for assessing value for money in public spending on levels of funding allocated in the south-east and the north of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. The plans that we inherited from the Conservative party saw capital spending decline as a share of GDP, which is totally the wrong decision if we want to grow the economy and improve prospects in towns and cities across the north of England. Over the course of this Parliament, we are putting £113 billion more into capital spending so that we can build the road and rail infrastructure, the energy infrastructure, the digital infrastructure and the housing that our country desperately needs. Under our reforms to the Green Book, we will make sure that we get more investment to the places that need it, including towns and cities in the north of England.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I am grateful to have secured Thursday’s Adjournment debate on the A66 road improvement project—a key transport link between Cumbria, the north-east and North Yorkshire. Cumbria is a long way from Westminster, and many of us fear that the economic case for major projects is stacked in favour of the economically active south-east. Can the Chancellor reassure me that Cumbria will not be disadvantaged when key public spending decisions are taken?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of his constituency and region. We will make decisions at the spending review, which we will publish on 11 June, but as a proud northern MP, I am absolutely determined that the north gets its fair share of investment.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I must admit that, as a new Member and a novice when it comes to the fine details of parliamentary procedure, I am surprised that we are debating this issue in this way today. As the Opposition know, the agricultural property relief measures announced in the Budget were not included in the Budget vote last month. They also know that the measures will be included in a future Finance Bill alongside other measures that will be subject to the technical consultation in the new year. This decision is simply not being made today, despite the disingenuous social media posts that imply otherwise.

This detail matters to me, because I have spent the last few weeks speaking to farmers in Penrith and Solway to try to understand the full impact of the inheritance tax proposals, knowing that I have months left to engage with DEFRA and the Treasury and to seek important amendments. Let me be clear: if today was the real vote, I would vote against the Government’s plans. I am no rebel—I am a moderate—but during the election, I read what I thought were assurances from my party that we had no plans to introduce changes to APR. On that basis, I reassured farmers in my constituency that we would not, and now I simply am not prepared to break my word. I am told that there is no Labour MP in the country with as many farms as I have in Penrith and Solway, and I hope my colleagues will understand my feelings on this.

Today, however, we are debating a frankly irrelevant motion from the Conservatives. The motion fails to acknowledge how they failed to deliver for my farmers, how they failed to deliver on trade deals after Brexit, and how they set budgets for new rural payment schemes, but could not make the schemes accessible. They made manifesto commitments for the public sector to buy British that never materialised, and they failed to spend flood prevention money that is desperately needed by my farmers on the Solway plain. They failed to deliver reforms of inheritance tax rules that farmers know were being abused by non-farmers at their expense. I simply will not walk into a Lobby with people who talk a good game on farming but do not deliver. Their motion starts with the words, “That this House regrets”, yet 14 years of failure do not even get a whisper.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I listened to the Member’s speech very closely. Paragraph 20.13 of “Erskine May” states:

“Formerly, the House strictly observed a rule against anticipation”.

That was designed to restrict debate on a subject to the type of proceedings deemed to be the most effective. As the word “formerly” suggests, the rule is no longer strictly observed and has not been for many years. The principal provision in the Budget relating to agricultural property relief is not contained in the Finance Bill currently before the House, so the question of anticipation does not arise. In any case, I am firmly of the view that any absolute rule should not prevent Members, whether acting individually or as parties, from holding the Government to account. I hope that that satisfies the Member; it is not a point for him to respond to right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) was here for the speech of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway, but he set out exactly what happened to him as a Labour MP, having given farmers assurances about what Labour would do in government and the farmers finding that they had been betrayed. Now, the choice is not final, as he said, and hopefully this debate has shown the passion of both farmers and those who represent rural constituencies.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed my speech. Did he enjoy the bit at the end where I listed the abject failures of his Government?

[David Mundell]

I liked the honesty of the hon. Gentleman’s speech in setting out how the Labour Government had let down his voters by going back on their undertakings in relation to the policy. They should listen to what has been said in today’s debate, to farmers and to the hon. Gentleman, and they should change the policy.

Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I might have this wrong, but I understand that the Tenant Farmers Association has suggested that there could be scope for reforming these taxes in a way that is of benefit to long-term tenancies. What is the hon. Member’s view on whether such reforms would be worthwhile?

[Harriet Cross]

I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production.

BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges.

Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field.

About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it.

In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes.

APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.