Oral Answers to Questions

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring genuine co-production. Two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed last October. The three of us have recruited a steering group of 12; they are almost entirely disabled people. Our fifth full-day steering group meeting was in Manchester last Thursday. We have issued a call for evidence, which is open until 28 May. We have had over 10,000 responses so far, and I hope we will receive many more. That is just step one in a programme of wider engagement. This is genuine co-production that will deliver.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

T7. We have already heard about the NEET crisis; nearly 1 million young people are being denied the opportunity to develop their potential through education, employment or training. The problem is even more acute in rural areas like the South Cotswolds, where we have the additional challenges of poor public transport, limited careers advice and fewer apprenticeships, making it harder for young people to get into work or training. What is the Secretary of State doing now to support those young people, and to tackle the extra barriers that they face in rural areas?

[Pat McFadden]

I have discussed this subject a lot with hon. Members from right across the House, and the issue that the hon. Member raises about transport is raised quite a lot with me. It is important, and I am willing to look at anything that I can do on that front to help people take up available opportunities. We need to bring everything together to give young people the maximum employment opportunities.

Alternative Measures to GDP

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Before I call Dr Roz Savage to move the motion, I remind Members that, unless they have given notice to Dr Savage or the Minister, they are unable to make a speech; I have not had any indication that anybody has given such notice. They are, however, able to make an intervention.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?”

My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own. First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience.

To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone. In a democracy, they must do so accountably, so we need an appropriate way of measuring their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for a very commendable speech in setting out what we are trying to achieve. She rightly highlights that, while GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services, it fails to capture critical aspects of life, such as environmental sustainability, income distribution and health. However, it is also a well-established measurement. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that we do not see a new measure that allows failures to be hidden by new definitions?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics.

So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her on her speech so far. Does she agree that the focus on GDP growth will continue to damage quality of life in rural areas by overlooking environmental damage, access to education, social inequality and worsening public health, and that, if the Government prioritised measures of those issues as much as they do GDP growth, we would see greater investment in overlooked rural areas such as Yeovil?

[Dr Savage]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s perspective that, in rural areas in particular, the aspects of our quality of life that are not measured in financial terms are very much overlooked by GDP. He makes an excellent point that, in fact, using GDP as the pre-eminent metric disproportionately impacts on rural ways of life.

As I was saying, if my assumptions about what Governments are for are correct, how well does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding? My answer to that would be: poorly, partially and, in some important respects—as already mentioned by others—not at all. I want to take each function in turn, looking at how GDP either misses or distorts it, or actively points in the wrong direction. First, on safety, GDP cannot measure whether people feel safe, whether crime is falling or whether justice is accessible. However, it counts the cost of building more prisons and policing more disorder, so a rise in violent crime, followed by the state’s response to it, actually adds to GDP. Secondly, on fairness, GDP is just an average; it tells us nothing about distribution. A country could have record growth, but the majority could be growing poorer while a handful are growing extraordinarily rich. It counts the billionaire’s yacht and the foodbank donation as contributions to national output alike.

Thirdly, public goods are where the distortion is most severe. GDP has no entry for clean rivers, unpolluted air, well-functioning flood defences or thriving natural ecosystems. Instead, it records the cost of remediation when things go wrong, never the value of prevention. In my South Cotswolds constituency, the Thames headwaters and the Cotswolds water meadows absolutely underpin food security, flood resilience and community health, but GDP is blind to all those things. Logging a forest, draining a wetland and concreting a floodplain all register as economic activity and contribute to GDP, while the loss of the natural ecosystems that made those landscapes valuable disappears without a trace.

Fourthly, on stability and risk, GDP counts healthcare spending, but it cannot tell us whether people are getting and feeling healthier. It counts anti-depressants and ambulance call-outs as contributions to output. By the logic of GDP, a pandemic is an economic opportunity. Fifthly, collective choices about the future are possibly where GDP fails most completely. It has no mechanism for accounting for the harm to future generations. By design, it rewards short-term thinking, and it is constitutionally incapable of answering the question, “What kind of a country do we want to be 50 years from now?”

The conclusion is inescapable: GDP was designed to measure the volume of economic activity, no matter what form that activity takes. Using it to assess whether a Government are fulfilling their five core functions is like using a thermometer to tell us whether a patient has recovered. The patient’s temperature may be perfectly normal, but their leg may have fallen off.

I have a couple of quotes worth remembering. Robert F. Kennedy put it with devastating precision in 1968. He said that GDP

“does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Meanwhile, Simon Kuznets—the economist who actually invented GDP in response to the great depression of the 1930s—had already warned that it should not be used as a measure of national wellbeing, yet we have been ignoring his advice ever since.

Unfortunately, GDP is not just partial; it can be actively misleading, because it creates perverse incentives at the heart of Government. As the Wellbeing Economy Alliance observes, our current system has four interlinked flaws: it is unsustainable, unfair, unstable and creates unhappiness. Critically, neither the brake nor the accelerator works any more. Faster GDP growth will only worsen biodiversity loss and accelerate climate change. In a system where a fabulously wealthy former Prime Minister pays an effective tax rate of just 23%, it will almost certainly also worsen inequality. That is the trap that GDP has built for us. It is a metric that makes it structurally challenging to do the right thing, because doing the right thing does not always show up as growth.

Moves have already been made in Britain in this direction, and we already have the data, but we do not use it. I will give credit where credit is due. When he was Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, Lord Cameron, launched the Office for National Statistics national wellbeing programme, and also quoted Robert Kennedy. Since 2011, the ONS has published a framework tracking national wellbeing across 60 measures and 10 topic areas, across personal wellbeing, health, relationships, environment, governance and more. In February of this year, the ONS launched a new set of seven headline measures to be updated quarterly, explicitly aligned with the UN high-level expert group’s recommendations.

We have the data and what it tells us is striking. Since the pandemic, self-reported health has been in sustained decline. Trust in Government rose briefly after the last general election before falling back to lower than pre-election levels. Those trends are invisible to GDP yet are essential to any honest assessment of how our country is doing. Sadly, those measures, no doubt laboriously collected, sit on the ONS website largely unread and almost entirely ignored by Government. I suggest that it is time to use them.

Elsewhere in the world, countries are moving ahead. They are building better measures, embedding them in law and using them to govern. Last week, I was at the Wellbeing Economy Forum, two days of serious exchange with policymakers, economists and practitioners from across the world. It was tremendously inspiring. Three things were unmistakeable: we have the intellectual case and the technical frameworks but the only thing missing in too many countries, including this one, is the political will.

I will cite three examples of countries showing what is possible. Iceland rebuilt after the economic collapse, not by chasing GDP recovery but asking its people what they wanted. It is now one of the wellbeing economy Governments, alongside Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland and Canada, all of which have introduced wellbeing metrics to guide public policy and budgetary processes. In Wales—not so far away—the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 legally requires every public body to act in the long-term interests of the next seven generations. That was initiated by Jane Davidson, a woman I am proud to call my friend. While I was at the conference last week, I had a long conversation with Sophie Howe who was Wales’s first future generations commissioner, and is now an internationally respected voice. If it can be done in Cardiff, I see no reason why it cannot be done in Westminster.

Thirdly, in Sabah, Malaysia, my good friend Cynthia Ong began the Forever Sabah movement, with a single simple question: where will Sabah be in 50 years if it continues down its current development trajectory? That question should be the founding question of every Government; not how fast are we going, but where are we going and what will we leave behind?

I have requests of the Government that would make a significant difference to my constituents, to every person here in Westminster, to the country and to the generations not yet born. The first is to use the data we already have. I am delighted we have a Minister from the Treasury here. Maybe he could relay the request to ask the Treasury formally to integrate the ONS wellbeing dashboard into spending decisions, alongside GDP, not instead of it.

Secondly, to require natural capital accounting in all major infrastructure and land-use decisions, so that the destruction of a flood plain, a peatland or a water catchment carries a recorded cost on the national balance sheet, not just a planning objection. If we value it, we must measure it. Thirdly, to introduce a parliamentary committee for the future, as called for by a coalition of organisations, including the School of International Futures and the Policy Institute at King’s College London. The committee would consider the long-term wellbeing of those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions. It should be not just a gesture but a committee with real teeth. Wales has shown that that is entirely achievable.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Lady add to her list a request that the Minister consider a formal target to cut inequality in this country? We will never grow our way to a good life for all our citizens while we have a fundamentally unjust society; we will only break the environmental boundaries we are already rapidly burning past.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his very insightful intervention. In the doughnut economics model, we are in many ways in “overshoot”, while the basic needs of many in our society are not even being met. That is one of the major failings of GDP: it does not show how the benefits of growth and the wealth of the country are being distributed. I have been very impressed by the work of Kate Pickett, who spoke at the recent Lib Dem spring conference on this very subject. She spoke about her “spirit level” concept and argued that greater equality in a society works better for everybody, including the people at the top.

If we are honest with ourselves, we can now see the cost of ignoring the warnings of Simon Kuznets and Robert Kennedy. We can see that warning embodied in polluted rivers that once ran clean, in communities that feel left behind and in a politics that too often measures success in pound signs rather than human outcomes. We have the evidence, and we have the frameworks; we just need the willingness to change the definition of what we value, because what we measure shapes what we prioritise, what we prioritise shapes our decisions and our decisions shape the country that we will be in five years, 10 years and 50 years from now. Let us take an active choice to measure what matters: the wellbeing of our people, the health of our planet and the future we hand on to future generations. Let this Parliament be the one that finally aligns how we measure success with what success actually means.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Roz Savage Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Like so many Members from across the House, I welcome the Government’s decision finally to scrap the two-child limit on benefits—I just wish they had done so much earlier. The two-child limit is a cruel and unfair penalty on those in the most urgent need of welfare and support. The cap does not tackle the exploitation of the benefits system in order to avoid work and to continue having children; instead, it has been an enormous burden on thousands of household budgets and has pushed more children into poverty. Even if one believes, like the Conservatives, that people have children irresponsibly, I still cannot see how those children should be punished. Every child deserves a good start in life.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

There are many reasons people end up on universal credit and in family situations with more than two children. It is because of those blended families that Cotswold district council chose not to apply the two-child limit in its welfare support scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that such councils—which have, in these cash-strapped times, supported blended families with more than two children —should not end up out of pocket and should be compensated by the Government for that support?

[Charlotte Cane]

I commend Cotswold district council for that work. Unfortunately, when I tried to get East Cambridgeshire district council to condemn the two-child cap, the Conservatives refused.

This policy was poorly conceived from the outset and has amounted to little more than attacks—not on parents, but on vulnerable children growing up in a cost of living crisis. My Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, which is relatively wealthy and has relatively high-paid work, is thankfully below the national average for child poverty. However, child poverty has continued to rise there despite the fact that 70% of affected households have at least one parent in work. Clearly, this is not a case of families scrounging off the system, but of family budgets stretched to breaking point.

Nationally, the picture looks similarly grim. Child poverty has increased over the past 15 years, pushing 850,000 more children into poverty. In rural areas such as my constituency, poverty can be all the more challenging: parents must travel miles to reach a supermarket or a food bank for affordable food, transport costs for school and work are far higher, fuel costs are higher and children are often socially isolated.

We should never have got to this point. The previous Conservative Government should have recognised that the two-child limit was both a failed experiment and salt in the wound for families dealing with spiralling costs in food, energy and basic necessities. I welcome the Government’s decision to make this correction, but it must be seen as the first step in improving the quality of life for children and building a better future. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that child poverty may cost in excess of £39 billion a year, accounting for additional public spending in areas such as health and education, as well as future tax receipt losses from resulting unemployment.

Behind that economic loss are children, who will, having missed out on sports clubs and healthy food, face a higher risk of disabilities and long-term health conditions—and, as we heard earlier, they even face an increased chance of early death. They are not afforded the opportunities to develop and pursue their own interests. Many may miss out on higher education, apprenticeships and even early employment.

The Bill is about the future of all children living in this country. We must ensure they are equipped with the resources to thrive and the ability to contribute to a society that supports them from the very start. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to annual reviews of the entire universal credit system to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living and becomes an effective tool to tackle child poverty?

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his eloquent and emotionally intelligent speech. Just over a year ago, the campaign group The Dad Shift came the Parliament. I was grilled by teachers and students from Europa School in my Oxfordshire constituency about my support for better paternity leave and pay. They told me that, at two weeks off at less than half the minimum wage, the UK is among the worst in Europe for provision. That is unacceptable, so it is welcome that the Government’s parental leave and pay review’s objectives include ensuring

“sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing”

and supporting

“parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family”.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I have heard from many parents in the South Cotswolds whose recent experiences do not fit neatly into the Government’s model of pregnancy. Whether it is having twins, post-natal depression or managing debt, every family’s situation is different. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s current system lacks the flexibility to accommodate these different circumstances, and that that needs to be addressed in the review?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes the very liberal point that we should always remember that everyone’s individual and family circumstances are different; it is important that the British state recognises that individuality, rather than expecting everyone to fit on a convenient spreadsheet.

To make some of the needed improvements, both the rate at which paternity pay is paid and the length of leave must be addressed. Currently, fathers and non-birthing parents are not supported to take time off from work because they cannot afford to do so. A large number of constituents have written to me on this topic. I am sure that many more, who have not had the time to consider writing to me, are also deeply affected by this, as shown by the large number of signatories to the petition that has triggered this debate.

Let me repeat some of the points made to me by my constituents. The low rate of statutory pay for both parents has huge financial implications for new parents, especially those in single-income households. Living on so little during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives is a significant issue.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700765 relating to compensation for women affected by state pension changes.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce this e-petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank the petitioners for making this debate possible, and all the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaigners for their tireless efforts, especially Jane Cowley, Angela Madden and Debbie de Spon.

The Government’s refusal to compensate WASPI women is both shocking and disheartening. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found clear maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions’ communication of state pension age changes and recommended that each affected woman should be awarded £2,950 as compensation.

The facts of the matter are that, despite a 15-year lead-in period, women were informed 21 years after the legislation passed, leaving many unaware of the impact on their retirement and life plans. Shockingly, some women never received any notification at all. The DWP has yet to explain why it concluded that written notification was necessary, yet failed to provide it. The ombudsman’s instruction for Parliament to ensure compensation is extremely rare, and the DWP’s refusal to comply with those recommendations is almost unprecedented, occurring in less than 1% of cases. More than 200 MPs have criticised the Government’s inaction, including 50 Labour MPs.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this important debate. Some 74% of the public support fair compensation for WASPI women. What does it say about this place and our democracy if, when 74% of the public have that opinion, we as a Parliament do not act to give WASPI women fair compensation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I include that figure—that staggering amount of public support for WASPI compensation—later in my speech.

At least 80 Ministers previously pledged support for the WASPI campaign while in opposition but, somehow, that support has not survived the transition into power. The 160,000 people who signed this petition feel betrayed and, as already mentioned, it is worth noting that 74% of the public support compensation for WASPI women.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this Petitions Committee debate. As the previous Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that 160,000 people signing a petition shows the strength of feeling, as very few petitions reach that threshold. Does she agree that that is a testament to the commitment of WASPI campaigners?

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.

The assumption that affected women should have monitored their pensions is deeply offensive. Like most normal people, they were focused on their lives, their work and their families. The oft-cited statistic that 90% of women knew about the changes is misleading; it comes from a 2006 survey about the general awareness of possible future changes, not the specific impact on individuals, and only 5% of the respondents to that survey were 1950s-born women. The ombudsman, in fact, found that only 43% knew that their pension age was 65.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she share my concern that we are going down a dangerous path when, despite the ombudsman having made a recommendation, that has been rejected? Does that not shake faith in the entire system of ombudsmen?

[Dr Savage]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an egregious lack of transparency and accountability at the heart of this case.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The hon. Member is being generous with her time. It is not just the ombudsman in which faith could be shaken. The public are rightly concerned that dozens if not hundreds of Labour Members of Parliament previously supported the WASPI women but have turned their backs on them now that they are in government. This is not just about the ombudsman; this is about parliamentary democracy and our constituents having faith that what we say will actually happen.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Now I will make some progress.

As a result of the changes, between 6% and 15% of affected women have fallen into poverty. Recent surveys show that 84% worry about energy bills, 76% worry about their financial future and, tragically, 71% avoid leaving their home to save money. I want to highlight the case of Marion Bond, one of my constituents in South Cotswolds. During a lifetime spent as a teacher, Marion made many sacrifices, including turning down promotions and working part time to care for her children while her husband worked long hours. Despite supporting his career, her divorce settlement was based on the assumption that she would receive her pension at 60. Instead, she unexpectedly faced a delay, losing six years of pension. The small compensation recommended by the ombudsman is a fraction of the £40,000 that she calculates she lost as a result of the lack of communication.

Marion’s story is not unique. A survey on Facebook that asked “What would you have done differently?” yielded over 1,500 heartrending stories as women shared how their lives would have been different with proper notification. The stories include escaping abusive relationships, continuing with much-loved careers rather than taking voluntary redundancy, and fulfilling care responsibilities for grandchildren or other relatives. Although men and women should have equal retirement ages, that is not the issue here. The issue is the communication failure. The mishandled roll-out of the change left many women stranded, facing unemployment and reliant on benefits. That in turn affected their mental and physical health and placed financial strain on their families, impacting childcare and the social and healthcare sectors.

There is a fundamental question about how we value women in our society. We must recognise that women face invisible financial penalties due to gender, including pay gaps and unpaid labour burdens.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful opening speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, which is why we have a gender pension gap of almost 40%. Does she agree that that is another reason for looking again at WASPI women? The lack of notification that they had means that the money means so much to so many of them.

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good point very well made. Women such as Marion and the rest of the WASPI women have devoted their lives to raising the next generation, contributing significantly to our economy. Ministers’ claims that women experienced no financial loss are false. Women lost the opportunity to make informed decisions, leading to significant material losses. The compensation sought is not a benefits payment, but redress for an injustice. It should not be means-tested, following precedents set by other Government compensation schemes such as those for the Windrush generation and Post Office sub-postmasters.

This debate centres on a core principle of good governance. When a Department fails to fulfil its own policy, it has an obligation to those affected. The DWP’s refusal to engage with victims or to even consider compensation violates that principle. The DWP has not even provided a reason for refusing compensation, demonstrating a deeply offensive lack of accountability. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have pushed the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. I know that WASPI will continue to take all actions necessary to help 1950s-born women to achieve justice through compensation, but only Parliament can make that happen.

As we debate this petition, we must consider the role that the Government play in providing a safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am sure we will hear many stories today of inspirational women who have served their community, family and country, and then been fundamentally let down by the British Government. The clock is ticking. More than 300,000 women born in the 1950s have died since this campaign began, with another passing away every 13 minutes on average. The solution is clear: the Government must act now to compensate WASPI women fairly and swiftly. These women have served their community, family and country, and it is time that we served them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

It has been an honour to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. This issue affects women from across the country, and the debate has been enormously encouraging. I hope I speak on behalf of the WASPI women in commending Members from the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and from all parties for speaking out with one voice today. We have unanimously called on the Government to do the right thing morally, and what may turn out to be legally, in compensating the WASPI women for the injustice they have suffered. I commiserate with the Minister, who has been sent out to defend the indefensible and to put the Secretary of State in the best possible light. I applaud his efforts.

I want to finish today’s debate by thanking the petitioners, as we are here today on their behalf. Without them, this powerful campaign would not have gained such widespread public support. I hope that today’s debate has shown the WASPI women that they have the support of many Members from both sides of the House. We are committed to supporting them beyond this debate—until justice is done and seen to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700765 relating to compensation for women affected by state pension changes.

Agricultural Property Relief

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies]

As someone who has lived and worked the land all my life, I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is something that is within our soul; it is not just a trading issue.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech. Given that we are asking farmers, who are already under so much emotional and financial pressure, to be even more active participants in helping us to mitigate climate change and restore nature, does she agree that it is not the time to add to their stress and risk losing their deep knowledge of their land, which has been passed from generation to generation?

[Ann Davies]

I totally agree. Nobody understands those fields better than the farmer who has worked that land. They know where those wet corners are and they know where they should not tread during certain times. The sustainable farming scheme—the SFS—is coming out in Wales next year, and it is about nature restoration, so I absolutely agree.

Estate agents in west Wales are already seeing increased investor interest in purchasing farms following the autumn Budget. Selling land to pay an inheritance tax bill will inevitably hit tenant farmers because the £1 million threshold will hit asset-rich estates. Around 30% of land in Wales is farmed under some sort of tenancy agreement and, although some is local authority-owned, much is owned by private landlords. The Tenant Farmers Association anticipates that more insecure agricultural tenancies will be terminated to allow land to be sold to avoid taxes on death. Other landlords are reducing the lengths of term offered to tenants, who were expecting longer leases, so that farms are more readily sellable in case of tax change.