Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 23 January.

“At the Autumn Budget, we took difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending that were necessary to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. We had to do that to address the mess we inherited from the previous Government, which the right honourable Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember well, having served in that ill-fated Government. We have taken these decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.

The Government are better targeting agricultural property relief and business property relief to make them fairer. These reforms mean that despite the tough fiscal context, the Government are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others.

Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is a similar picture for business property relief, with more than 50% of it being claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Our reforms mean that individuals can access 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil rate bands, this means that a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant, inheritance tax-free.

Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published further details on the data sources and modelling used to estimate costings across a number of the tax measures announced at Budget, including the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The costing is the same as published at Budget, and the approach to modelling the costing is typical and in line with other tax policies. As the Government have set out, the reforms mean that almost three-quarters of estates claiming APR in 2026-27, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax. This is a fair approach that protects farms while also fixing the public services we all rely on”.

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: a third share in two small Wiltshire fields—what is left of the marginal family farm of my childhood.

I am not surprised that the increases in agricultural and business property taxes in the Budget have proved to be friendless, except in some deeply urban areas. This was demonstrated in last week’s debate on this Question about costs in the other place.

The truth is, the Government have miscalculated. They expected a vindictive tax grab on large estates to be welcomed by those of an envious disposition. Instead, the difficulties faced by the working family farms which produce so much of our food have been noticed, even by the supermarkets. Elderly farmers are especially desperate.

The Government have the ghastly choice of brazening the matter out or making some sensible concessions. There are already whisperings about the latter. Will the Minister help to ensure that the Government reduce the harm to agricultural investment and food security of this misguided policy?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do, however, totally dispute her characterisation of this policy. At the Budget, we had to take some very difficult decisions on welfare spending and tax that were necessary to fix the public finances and support our public services. We had to do that to address the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We took those decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.

As a result of the measures we are taking, individuals will continue to be able to claim 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil-rate bands, that means a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant inheritance tax-free. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, the measures will go ahead as planned.

My Lords, my colleagues on these Benches have made it clear that we oppose this tax change; we are concerned about the impact of it on family farms and the rural economy, and the knock-on effect on food pricing and food security. We have proposed alternative taxes in lieu. However, in the spirit of compromise, I propose that the Minister looks at lifting the individual thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property to £3 million. It would provide great relief for the genuine small farms and would still capture those who are seeking to use investment in farm property as a loophole for tax avoidance. Frankly, having seen the OBR numbers, it would be a very little loss to the Exchequer.

I am very grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness for her spirit of compromise. As I said in answer to the previous question, given the nil-rate bands, a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant inheritance tax-free.

My Lords, growth, a government priority, requires investment. What assessment have the Government made of the effect of reducing the reliefs on investment in farming?

The Government set out their modelling at the Budget and, more recently, the Chancellor provided very extensive additional details to the Treasury Select Committee on exactly that point, including in her follow-up letter. That modelling was backed up by the OBR, as shown in the publication last week.

My Lords, can the Minister say how much the Government expect to raise from the abolition of APR and its consequential impact on inheritance tax relief? The Office for Budget Responsibility, in its Supplementary Forecast Information Release of 22 January, stated very clearly, in paragraph 1.11 on page four:

“The central estimate for the costing is an increase in revenue of £0.5 billion by 2029-30”.

Is that really all that the Government expect to raise from this very cruel measure?

Yes, it is—and it will go a very long way to help our public services after years of neglect. I completely disagree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of this policy.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that big supermarkets could do more to support farmers in Britain, who are under pressure from the squeeze on prices that big supermarkets are setting? At least one big supermarket achieved more than £2 billion of pre-tax profits—an increase of 15%—last year.

I certainly agree with my noble friend on the specific point that farmers’ incomes are under pressure, and we must do everything we can, as a Government, to support farmers in that respect. It is worth adding that we will continue to work in partnership with the large supermarket chains. We are determined to work with businesses right across the country to drive economic growth.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the OBR note confirms that farmers and businesspeople have a large number of options for reducing their inheritance tax liability? Does he agree that, in so far as the measure encourages farmers to pass on their farms to younger, more dynamic successors, it is as likely to increase productivity as to reduce it?

I absolutely agree with everything that the noble Lord said. Last week’s publication from the OBR does not contain any new information about its view on the fiscal impact of this policy; it remains the same as it set out in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the 2024 Budget. The noble Lord’s question relates to that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The OBR described this as “highly uncertain” because such a wide range of tax planning options are available to respond to this policy change, including being able to pass on up to £3 million tax-free. The noble Lord was also correct to say that the current system, particularly the extent to which it drives up land prices, has locked out young farmers from being able to own property—and them being able to do so is undoubtedly a good thing.