Opposition day: UK Farming and Inheritance Tax
181
Ayes
—
339
Noes
Defeated · Government won
126 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 4 December 2024, the House of Commons voted on a Conservative opposition day motion (a debate initiated by the main opposition party to scrutinise government policy) calling for the protection of family farms from the government's inheritance tax changes and for the maintenance of agricultural property relief. The motion was defeated by 339 votes to 181. **Why it matters:** The vote concerned the government's October 2024 Budget decision to cap agricultural property relief (APR), a longstanding tax relief that had allowed farmland and farm businesses to be passed between generations without triggering inheritance tax. From April 2026, inherited agricultural and business assets above 1 million pounds will be subject to inheritance tax at an effective rate of 20 percent. Supporters of the motion argued this threatens the viability of family farms and food security. The government maintained that the current unlimited relief had been exploited by wealthy landowners and investors who were not working farmers, and that the change would only affect the largest estates. **The politics:** The opposition motion united virtually all parties outside the government against the change. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted in favour. All Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted came down against, with no recorded rebels on the government side. The Greens split, with two voting against the motion alongside the government. This cross-opposition alignment reflected genuine rural anxiety but also the political opportunity the farming tax debate presented to opposition parties heading into a sustained campaign against the Budget measure, which continued through related Finance Bill votes in early 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support the motion criticising the inheritance tax changes affecting farms, backing exemptions or relief for agricultural property to protect family farms
Voting No meant
Oppose the motion, defending the government's inheritance tax reform as a fair measure to close a loophole exploited by wealthy landowners, not primarily affecting ordinary family farmers
520 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 126 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
300
62
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
33
9
Independent
4
4
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
0
2
2
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
1
—
The inheritance tax changes will destroy family farming; government figures are wildly inaccurate and contradicted by professional valuers; policy represents betrayal of election promises and will force farms to sell land to non-farmers.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,702 words) →
Reforms are necessary to fix the £22 billion fiscal hole; they maintain generous relief for family farms (£1m combined relief plus 50% relief above that); nearly three-quarters of farms claiming relief will pay no additional tax.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,738 words) →
While acknowledging prior Conservative failures on farming transitions, the inheritance tax policy is poorly designed and will harm family farms already struggling from scheme implementation failures; a working farm exemption should have been included.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,066 words) →
Professional advice suggests 65% of small family farms in Northern Ireland will be affected; the government fundamentally misunderstands the impact of its policy.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (118 words) →
Labour government provides clarity and missions for farming; should use procurement power to back British farming and protect farmers from low-standard trade competition.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,102 words) →
Victoria Atkins's record as Health Secretary and Treasury Minister was destructive; the government is bringing stability to the economy and farmers' profitability.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (110 words) →
The policy represents betrayal because both the Prime Minister and Secretary of State explicitly promised before the election that these changes would not be made.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (619 words) →
The government failed to conduct proper impact assessment and did not consider alternative mechanisms like business roll-over relief that would target wealthier non-farmers; farmers aged near retirement need specific mitigations.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,159 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0