Clause 1

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

The Lib Dems welcome the U-turn by the Government in December raising the allowance to £2.5 million and welcome the change announced in the Budget permitting the allowance to be transferable between spouses and civil partners. But as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, put it,

“These changes make the policy better, but that is not the same as saying that they make it good.” —[Official Report, 5 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 30.]

We ask the Government to think again in the following areas. The Treasury estimates that the tax will now raise £300 million by 2029-30, down from £520 million. If the same pro rata reductions applied, less than £100 million will be raised in 2026-27—minuscule against the estimated total tax receipts this year of £1.23 trillion. Professional bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, has expressed concern at how administratively burdensome it will be to value assets and calculate potential liabilities, even if there is no tax to pay. How does the revenue forecast to be raised compare with the cost of administering this new policy?

When the Government originally announced the planned changes to APR last year, the Chartered Institute of Taxation also suggested introducing transitional gifting rules to support older farmers who have done the logical thing of hanging on to their land, but who are now faced with penalties for doing so. Can Ministers please look at ways of alleviating some of that burden for older farmers who have not been able to plan ahead for this change? We will be voting against clause 62 because we as a party have consistently voted against the family farm tax and want it scrapped in its entirety.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentioned £100 million or £300 million as minuscule amounts, but that is quite a lot of money to my hard-pressed constituents. Could the Liberal Democrats outline how they would pay for the policy that they advocate for—either increasing taxes on working people in my constituency or cutting the services they use?