Clause 1

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard]

That is a very good question, but £100 million is 0.1% of £1.23 trillion. In materiality, it is important to think of it in that range. I do not think this is the way of going about it.

I ask the Government to consider voting in favour of amendment 3, which would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to APR and BPR and delay the implementation date so that changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027, and of our new clause 7, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish an assessment of annually uprating the relief allowance for APR by the change in the value of agricultural land.

While awareness of the APR changes is very high among the farming community, I am concerned that awareness of the changes to BPR may not be as high among business owners in many sectors. Do the Government have any plans to raise awareness so that people know what is headed their way?

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Finance Bill. I will address clause 62 and schedule 12, which relate to APR and BPR. I have spoken on this subject several times, and did so back in November, because my constituency of North Northumberland has over 700 farm holdings, each of them growing the food that we eat and stewarding our land. As one farmer said to me recently:

“We have farmed this land since the mid-1800s—each generation investing in long-term decisions…which have benefited not just the farm, but the local area.”

I believe it is messages like that and the ability of farmers in North Northumberland to get this message across that were pivotal to bringing about these Government amendments.

The amendments will establish 100% relief up to £5 million for a couple, transferable between spouses, and a 50% relief thereafter. That will protect most family farms, with 85% of estates seeing no additional burden from April. I am indebted to the farmers of North Northumberland both for the way that they have engaged on the issue of inheritance tax and for the hard work they do day in, day out to put food on our dinner tables.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I have enjoyed working with my hon. Friend on the Labour rural research group. We are so grateful to our farmers for engaging with us and educating us as we have gone along, so does he agree that we now have a fantastic opportunity to rebuild trust with our farmers? I have had many emails of thanks from them, and I thank the Prime Minister and the Treasury for this policy amendment. I wonder how many of my hon. Friend’s farmers have also said that, despite the fact that they have usually or often voted Conservative, they always do better under a Labour Government.

[David Smith]

As I will go on to say, I can confirm that I have had many messages of support for this change in policy. It has been a pleasure to work with the Labour rural research group and other colleagues on this matter, as my hon. Friend mentioned. As I thank farmers, I also want to thank the Government for listening, learning and acting. It is the hallmark of a mature Government and of a healthy parliamentary debate that we have got to this point.

A multitude of structural factors contribute to the sustainability of intergenerational farming. There are many similarities between Britain’s blue-collar workers in the factories and what we might call green-collar workers in the fields. Both are squeezed by commercial interests and a globalised race to the bottom in pricing, costs and wages, which is why the laissez-faire approach to farming economics, such as in the imbalanced trade deals of the Conservative party, work against the sustainability of farming.

We have to plough a new furrow that will make farming genuinely sustainable in an intergenerational way. Protecting farming will require Government to form a new covenant with farming and green-collar workers more generally. The implementation of the Batters review will be very important here, particularly the farming and food partnership board, so that the whole supply chain can be examined and improved. It is high time the supermarkets in particular gave a fair price for the produce of our famers. Despite what the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), said, the Secretary of State announced last week the plan for the SFI application process later this year. I particularly welcome the fact that there will be ringfenced support for smaller farms within that.

As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I will just mention that some larger farms will be impacted even after the changes to APR and BPR. For those just above the threshold, I encourage the Government to consider addressing the potential time and capacity challenges for accurate estate valuation and speedy probate, which must dovetail with the expectation of inheritance tax payments, so that estates that need to pay have clarity and are not penalised for blockages in the wider system.

I know that the Government are totally committed to the success of farming. That is vital, because the country needs a flourishing farming sector.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman’s constituency neighbour, representing a similarly rural constituency, I know how strongly farmers on my side of the border feel—like farmers on his side. The word “betrayal” comes up time and again among my local farmers. The Labour party said that it would not introduce this tax, and then it did. Does he now regret not following the lead of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who did the right thing by rebelling against the policy?

[David Smith]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his intervention. Rather than go down the route of his question, let me respond with the words of one of my local farmers. She wrote to me on 23 December and said:

“As you know, we have been very vocal in opposing the earlier proposals, so it is equally important to state how strongly we welcome this change in policy. Increasing the threshold, together with the ability to retrospectively transfer unused APR and BPR allowances from my late mother to my father, will make a huge difference to our family and the viability of our farm business.

I will leave my remarks there.

[Robbie Moore]

I will speak to clause 62, schedule 12 and the amendments to them tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers.

Throughout debate on the Finance Bill, we have heard about the changes to inheritance tax, predominantly in relation to the agricultural and business property reliefs. My comments refer not only to the many family farming businesses affected by the Government’s changes, but to many other family businesses, be they hospitality or manufacturing businesses, including in my Keighley constituency. They are all affected by the direction that the Labour Government are taking.

The changes that the Government have brought to the Committee do not get rid of the cliff edge associated with the measure kicking in a few months from now in April. Changing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million does not remove that cliff edge for a family business that has an IHT liability kicking in. I would like the Minister to explain further why the Government are not addressing that stark cliff edge, even though Members from all Opposition parties have reiterated that problem to the Government over the past 14 months.

The second matter I will raise is the absolutely bizarre and bonkers scenario that we find ourselves in. Two estates valued at £5 million could be subject to different tax liabilities depending on the ownership structure. How bizarre is it that we now find ourselves in a scenario in which an estate valued at over and above £2.5 million and owned by a single person could be subject to an IHT liability of 20%, but a farm valued at £5 million and owned by a married couple is subject to no IHT liability at all? I would like further explanation from the Minister on that specific point.

Of course, values vary dramatically across the country. In Northern Ireland, where most farmland assets are given very high valuations, farms of 200 acres, say, could be valued significantly more or less in different parts of the country, so they would be subject to different tax liabilities if they surpassed the £2.5 million and £5 million thresholds, depending on their ownership structures. Let us not forget that, for arable farmers, feed wheat prices have not changed dramatically over the past 20 years—they still average about the same—but input prices are going up, no thanks to this Government’s raising of employer national insurance contributions and imposition of the fertiliser tax. In reality, the productivity and return rate for a farming business, if it breaks even at all, is about 1%. Those with asset base that is valued significantly higher will be subject to a higher tax liability, and they will have to sell off more assets to pay the same amount, despite their level of return being 1%, if that. That is different from a farm that has been valued at a much lower rate. Will the Minister explain what level of detail the Government have gone into to explore such challenges that are facing many farming businesses?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the report by CenTax entitled, “The Impact of Changes to Inheritance Tax on Farm Estates” published on 14 August 2025.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

10. If she will hold discussions with farming representatives on the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

Ministers from Government Departments have met organisations 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, and the NFU in Scotland and Wales. I also met farmers in the north-east of England only last month. After listening and considering the independent Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report, the Government believe that the approach we have set out is an appropriate one.

[David Smith]

I am proud to support a Government who believe in progressive taxation, as I am sure the Minister does—that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Under the CenTax minimum share rule proposal, farm estates where at least 60% of the estate is used for farming would receive relief of up to £5 million per person. This would reduce the risk of family farms being broken up, place a greater burden on very large estates and those gaming the system, and double the forecast tax take. Will the Minister direct Treasury officials to take another look at the CenTax proposals on APR prior to the Budget?

Bank Closures: Rural Areas

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because again she enhances and underlines the argument that I have been deploying, and for which colleagues across the House have been kind enough to add their support.

I suppose my annoyance is that the people who write the policies, whether they are the regulators or those in the bank boardrooms, do not know what living in a rural area is like. If they are in the Square Mile, they are not part of a rural community. They may have a getaway weekend retreat that they dash off to in their personalised number-plated Land Rover or Range Rover, in which they take their food down from Waitrose, before coming back to London on the Sunday, but that is not living in a rural area. That is not running a business in a rural area.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

I give way to the hon. Member for North Northumberland, which really is a rural area.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. He mentioned the Square Mile there. In my constituency of North Northumberland—the third largest in England—there are eight branches in 2,100 square kilometres. That has gone down by 64% since 2015.

I want to highlight a point raised elsewhere in the debate. Banking hubs are important and, like other Members, I am pushing for them in my constituency; but again, the role of the Post Office in those banking services is key. We had to fight together as a community to secure Wooler post office. I must give credit to Glendale Gateway Trust for securing that. Does the hon. Member agree that post offices are absolutely vital and part of the solution to this problem?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In many respects—[Interruption.] I am beginning to get paranoid; I hear voices. He is absolutely right to make the point that he does. I pay tribute to how the Post Office has stepped up. Very often, in providing that sort of transactional bank service, it has supported the continuance of rural post offices, which can often be marginal and fragile businesses themselves. Again, I think it an easy crutch to lean on to say, “Well, of course, the post office does this.” We can all applaud what post offices do, but customers cannot use them to talk to someone from their bank to discuss their overdraft, loan, mortgage, business credit card maximum or whatever it may happen to be.

I say to the Minister that we want our local businesses and small and medium enterprises to flourish—small, micro and family-owned businesses are very much the hallmark of a rural economy—and they have the greatest need, on a more regular basis, for that relationship with their banks. Then, the banks know the nature of the business and its long-term viability, and they can build that relationship.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I have held dozens and dozens of conversations with farmers across my constituency of North Northumberland. It has become clear to me that they welcome the principle of this policy, which is to stop the super-wealthy from minimising their tax liabilities by land banking with agricultural land. Not one of those farmers told me that they have a problem with the aim of the policy: to stop the wealthy avoiding tax. However, in the same conversations, many of the farmers told me that they are concerned that their businesses will be adversely affected. I wonder, therefore, if the relief element of the policy could be recalibrated.

The Government’s aim is to support our farmers and our food security, but we are doing that in a context where Tory inaction over 14 years has left great challenges, including climate change, a muddled and chaotic Brexit, and, as we have heard, deals on lamb and beef that our farmers are concerned about. We are not working in a vacuum. I am the first Labour MP in history for the vast majority of my constituency; that is not because the population were happy with what the Conservatives delivered for the countryside and farmers. I ask the Government to consider whether the balance is right. I have spoken to farmers in my constituency whose farms are worth £5 million, £8 million, £20 million and everything in between.

[Catherine Fookes]

Yesterday I visited Emma, a dairy farmer in my constituency. She still has a mortgage on her farm, which means that she cannot pass it on now. How might the inheritance tax work for her?

[David Smith]

Our farmers are facing a great many challenges, including being very over-leveraged in debt, and we should consider that. I spoke to one farmer whose land is valued at £16 million, so their new inheritance tax liability will be about £2.8 million, but they make just £96,000 profit per year. There are several examples of farmers who have low profits but face enormous bills.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My farmers in my Shrewsbury constituency have told me that they have struggled to make a profit for many years now. Indeed, they say, “The only game in town is to go big or go bust.” In other words, 12,000 small farmers have gone under because, over the last decade, farming has not been a profitable business. They tell me that they are ready to make some of the behavioural changes needed to pass the asset down to the next generation, who have just come out of agricultural college and learned all these new techniques, so that it can be profitable, sustainable and environmentally friendly. However, they also want me to pass on the information that our oldest farmers will not be able to make that behaviour change quickly enough. Will the Minister consider a temporary transitional extension to the taper, perhaps at year two, to help them to make the changes, which they are willing to do, and to make this policy work?

[David Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that these are some of the challenges our farmers are facing. As these examples show, the value of the land often bears no relation to the limited cash flow and the profit that is made. It is reassuring that a few tweaks to the policy would remove most of the pressure on family farms while maintaining the pressure on land bankers, who are the focus of the policy. Hardly a single North Northumberland farm will enjoy 100% relief, even with the nil-rate band, so raising the threshold would give instant peace of mind to family farmers.

I suspect that the Government could use data from the Rural Payments Agency and DEFRA to implement an active farmer test and judge whether the land is being put to public use and is therefore eligible for relief. That would differentiate intergenerational farmers and those simply buying farmland to reduce their tax liability. If a clawback mechanism is added and the land is then sold, for example, 10 years after gifting, the Government can reserve the right to claw the relief back for the public purse. Many of these measures have been in place in Ireland since 2015.

I know that the Minister is hearing the same thing that I am from farmers across the country. I urge him and his colleagues to work together to consider whether this policy can be recalibrated to achieve both the Government’s aims of supporting our nation’s family farms and of closing the loopholes that have distorted our land values for too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shrunk inside his shell, and the farmers in his constituency will have heard that.

It is possible to challenge one’s Government. I said to my Whips then that the best service we could do the Government was to prevent them from doing something stupid, harmful and alienating to voters. I hope that Government Members can see that, because the Opposition cannot change this. People outside say to me, “Can we get this changed?” It is actually up to Labour MPs. They have the majority. Democracy is not about having a majority and doing what one likes. Democracy is about listening and doing what the now Prime Minister told the NFU when he said:

“You deserve a Government that listens, that heeds early warnings”.

There are one or two warnings about. Listen, change: if the Government change, four years on, no one will remember the U-turn. Whatever civil servants say—they are always very keen to stick with a policy—if it is wrong, stop doing it. And this is wrong. In the minute and 20 seconds I have left, let me say why it is so wrong. We have touched on the various elements, but I am not sure we have pulled it all together.

We have a really peculiar group of businesspeople in this country; they are called farmers. They take a return on capital—the millions they have invested in their farms—that is typically less than 1%. There is nobody that I am aware of—no business I was ever involved in—that would remotely consider continuing in an industry that paid less than 1%. These farmers take a pittance and get up at 4 o’clock in the morning for the privilege. They look after the animals and it does not matter if they are ill; they cannot carry their employment rights and go, “I’m not well, I shouldn’t have to go out,” because the cows do not care: they have to go out and look after them, and then they get less than 1% return. Those farmers, the most beneficent public-minded businesspeople in the whole country, then provide excellent food at among the lowest prices in Europe. If ever there were a business that we would not want to go and mess with, it is these—I should not say it, because I will make enemies of them.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his scoring system, but can he confirm whether he was part of the last Government, which failed to get £300 million of subsidies to farmers out the door?

[Graham Stuart]

For the hon. Gentleman’s political career, as he has been so brave today, I entirely forgive him that piece of whataboutery.

We must understand how remarkable it is that there is a whole group of businesspeople who take practically nothing from their business, work all the hours God gives, and provide us with some of the finest food in the world at among the lowest prices in Europe. Why would we want to mess with that? Not only do they do that, but they brainwash their children from the earliest age so that they carry on doing it. These people are in indentured service to the nation, providing food while making very little profit. They do it willingly and, in fact, love it: it is their life. To go and mess with them out of some stupid, socialist spite is ridiculous and absurd, and Government Members know that—the hon. Member for North Northumberland certainly does, and he should lead his colleagues to tell the Chancellor to change course, just as we did in 2012 when George Osborne got it wrong.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am grateful that the Conservatives, after many years of ignoring farmers, have finally decided to pay attention to farming and food security.

Farming plays a vital role in the past, present and future of North Northumberland. There are almost 2,000 farms across Northumberland, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris); each of them proudly and patiently shaped the landscape that we view as quintessentially British, and they play a crucial role in sustaining local communities.

Farmers are good for North Northumberland. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have spent a great deal of time meeting them and representing their concerns in Parliament. In fact, my first non-maiden speech was on the virtues and challenges of sheep farming. I have done that because I understand, as the Government do, that farming is central both to the communities I represent and to our way of life in the UK. Put simply, our country cannot flourish without a flourishing farming sector.

Farming has been battered for 14 years under previous Governments. As I was preparing for this debate, I read a recent letter from a farming constituent about a range of difficulties he faces:

“For many years government intervention has always dominated the top of my risk register, due to inconsistent policy and its oft re-enforced reputation as a poor payer.”

It would be convenient for the Conservatives if farmers across the UK were to forget about the past 14 years and blame all the current difficulties on a Government who have been in office for just six months. However, creating a reputation for Government as a “poor payer” and having inconsistent policy takes years, not months.

In July 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority found that the post-2020 squeeze inflicted on our food supply chain was a combination of significant rises in energy, commodity and labour costs, made worse in some cases by adverse movements in the exchange rate. In other words, farmers have been squeezed for years by energy prices, labour costs and a depreciation of the pound, and the previous Government bear some responsibility for all those factors.

In April 2024, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found that since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Government had enacted only three out of 10 policies necessary to improve energy security and bring prices down in the long term, which speaks to years of failure on energy, whether that is selling off gas storage capacity, dodging tough decisions on nuclear or going cool on the urgency of global warming by banning onshore wind. When global energy fluctuated, the lack of long-term preparation left our farmers exposed to rocketing prices.

Another matter I would like to raise is the issue of large retailers at times letting down our farmers. They are able to dominate negotiations around own-label products, and, with 90% of farm-produced vegetables being sold by supermarkets, farmers are stuck in a monopoly position that threatens their business. I urge the Government to do what they can to ensure reliable pricing and supply arrangements can be set between farmers and retailers that benefit our national food security.

There is also the issue of subsidy. We need to get the money out the door to farmers, and make sure they can actually get the funding that they did not get under the previous Government.

I will finish by mentioning another of the issues we have talked about today on APR. There is a need for continued constructive engagement around the recently announced proposed reforms. While every farmer I have spoken to welcomes the proposal to end taxpayer subsidies for the super-wealthy buying up land in order to avoid inheritance tax, I am aware that the Government are facing two competing responsibilities. The first managing the national finances, and the second is ensuring that every community can follow its traditions and dreams. As a farmer recently wrote to me:

“Despite all that was thrown at my father over the years, all he ever wanted to do was farm and he LOVED it. Somehow, it was in his blood.”

I know the Government understand this. I urge the Minister to continue to keep that front and centre as we support the contribution of farmers to our national life. After many years of ineptitude, neglect and the doling out of crumbs by the Conservatives, it must be Labour that truly becomes the party of farming and rural life.

Banking Services: Rural Northumberland

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for giving me an unintended promotion. It may seem like we are just saying names on a map, but consider the vast scale of my constituency in our wonderful county of Northumberland. These places are separated by huge distances, and have a public transport system that does not always seem to work as it should. It is simply not fair that vulnerable people in my constituency are forced to travel for as long as an hour by car or 90 minutes by public transport, either way. It is unfair to expect our constituents to put up with a second-class service because they live rurally. Unfortunately that has been the case in large parts of our county. It is incredibly important that we address these issues.

We all recognise that many of these communities, particularly in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), have historically voted Conservative, but they put their faith in the Labour party for the first time at the last election. We were elected to deliver meaningful change for our constituencies. I applied for this debate having spent my time as a candidate listening to the concerns of people across the constituency, but there is one area I wish to highlight. In Haltwhistle, and the towns and villages around it, the loss of Barclays last year is still damaging the local economy. I have been in touch with the chair of Haltwhistle chamber of trade, Ian Dommett, who told me directly that the loss of banking facilities in rural towns such as Haltwhistle has had a negative effect on every business. His members have been affected; most had accounts at Barclays because of its presence in the town.

The replacement of an active branch with a peripatetic community hub has removed the relationship between business and branch. Many businesses deal in cash—Ian’s business is a bed and breakfast, with many guests paying in cash, and a lot of Haltwhistle’s passing trade is from tourist spend on Hadrian’s wall—but they have lost the ability to pay directly into the bank, with the nearest Barclays’ branch being 20 miles away. Haltwhistle businesses say that the bank has simply told them to use the post office, a separate business over which it has no control.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate on an issue that is important in both his constituency and mine. I draw attention to the correlated issue of post offices. In Wooler in North Northumberland, where there are no bank branches, the post office, which provides the only banking services for that community, is also at risk of closure. Thankfully, an incredible community response, led by the Glendale Gateway Trust, is fighting to retain it. I will do everything in my power, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that banking hubs more generally, and the Post Office specifically, must be part of the solution to the lack of access to banking services in Northumberland?

[Joe Morris]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. For many businesses and constituents, the post office represents a lifeline, albeit one that unfortunately for many businesses is accessed far too infrequently to operate with security. The decision to close rural branches is taken in head offices, with little or no understanding of the rural economy and the impact that such decisions have on our constituents, their businesses and their daily lives.