Opposition day: UK Farming and Inheritance Tax
181Ayes
339Noes
Defeated · majority 158 · Government won126 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 181 · No 339 · DNV 126 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 4 December 2024 on an Opposition Day motion brought by the Conservative Party calling on the government to reverse its changes to agricultural property relief (APR), the tax break that allows farms to be passed on without inheritance tax. The motion was defeated by 339 votes to 181. Opposition Day motions do not themselves change the law, but they put the government on record and force MPs to declare their position publicly. The vote concerns a policy announced in the October 2024 Budget that, from April 2026, will cap the 100 per cent inheritance tax relief on agricultural property at £1 million per individual. Estates above that threshold will be taxed at a reduced rate of 20 per cent on the excess. Supporters of the motion argued the change threatens the financial viability of family farms that have been passed between generations, since farmland values are high relative to the income farms generate. The government argued the reform is fair because it targets only the wealthiest agricultural estates and smaller family farms will remain fully protected. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 299 Labour MPs and 33 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the motion, with no Labour members voting in favour. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and the DUP all voted for the motion. The Greens voted against alongside the government. The result placed the opposition parties in a broad but informal cross-party alliance against the reform, though the government's majority was never in doubt.
Voting Aye meant
Support scrapping or reversing the inheritance tax changes for farms, arguing the policy threatens family farming businesses passed down through generations
Voting No meant
Oppose the motion, backing the government's inheritance tax reform as a fair measure that affects only the wealthiest estates while protecting smaller family farms
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted No
0
299
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
93
0
23
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
33
9
Independent
—
5
5
4
Scottish National Party
Voted Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Voted Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
2
2
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
The Bill balances fairness to refugees and local communities by accelerating asylum decisions, tightening article 8 protections, curtailing modern slavery abuse, and creating safe legal routes while maintaining robust human rights law.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (7,841 words) →
The Bill's incremental reforms will fail because judges will circumvent them using the ECHR; only withdrawal from the Convention, repeal of the Human Rights Act, and blanket denial of asylum to illegal entrants will control borders.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,839 words) →
The Bill repeats hostile rhetoric and failed policies from four decades of immigration legislation; it risks another Windrush-style scandal and ignores immigrants' positive contribution to Britain.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (814 words) →
The Bill piles bureaucracy on the Home Office, risks higher costs, and fails to restore orderly EU asylum relations post-Brexit; poor Home Office decision-making, not appeals, drives the backlog.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,064 words) →
The Bar Council and civil rights groups warn that non-legally-qualified adjudicators will produce legally unsound decisions; appeals should remain before judges.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (115 words) →
The shadow Home Secretary's call to abandon the ECHR casually discards 80 years of human rights protections forged after the Holocaust and would open a dark chapter in British history.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (143 words) →
Home Office decision-making quality (40% of appeals overturned) is the real problem; the Bill's reforms risk worsening decisions and ignoring the root cause.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,132 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0