
Reeves's tax on farmers funds the fight against shoplifting, suggests minister
Torsten Bell said the Chancellor's changes to inheritance tax will enable more police on the streets, meaning fewer shops needing to pay for their security.
Speaking to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Bell, a Treasury and pensions minister, said: 'If you go back to the autumn Budget last year, which is when the big decisions this Government made were taken, yes, there were some tough decisions on tax.
'I understand why people affected by those would rather they hadn't taken place. But if you look at the decisions we've had to make on inheritance tax, or capital gains tax, or on non-doms or on VAT on private schools, we're doing the right thing to make sure that we can have sustainable public finances.
'But also that we can bring austerity to an end, so we can start to rebuild public services. And in the end, that is the pro-business choice just like it's the pro-public services choice.
'Because we can't have retail businesses having to deal with paying to put security guards on their door because there aren't enough police on the beat. We can't have people having to pay a health charge in effect because their workers aren't able to turn up to work because waiting lists are too long in the NHS.'
Mr Bell's remarks are likely to fuel the backlash to how the Government has approached both its changes to agricultural property relief and the shoplifting crisis.
The shoplifting epidemic is at record levels with nearly three offences a minute – or 530,643 in total – reported to police in the year to March, at an estimated cost of £1.8bn to retailers.
Last week, Dame Diana Johnson, the policing minister, warned business owners against displaying products such as bottles of alcohol at the front of stores because people will steal them.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman then said Sir Keir Starmer would not call shoplifters 'scumbags' in response to a free speech row.
North Wales Police was forced to clarify its position after its officers told a shopkeeper that a sign calling shoplifters 'scumbags' could be offensive.
Farms close after tax
A record number of farms have already closed for good this year after the Government's so-called 'family farm tax' made the future of thousands of rural businesses unviable.
Currently, family farms do not incur inheritance tax and receive full relief on the usual 40 per cent rate.
But at her first Budget last October, Ms Reeves confirmed inheritance tax will be charged at a rate of 20 per cent, above a threshold of £1m.
A total of 6,365 agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses closed in the past year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the highest number on record.
Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, said the farm closures were a result of 'Labour's disastrous tax policies'.
Reform UK, meanwhile, warned that Ms Reeves's policy and wider £40bn tax raid was 'pushing British farming to the brink'.
Farmers have objected to the tax raid because their businesses are typically cash-poor and low-margin, meaning they will be forced to sell chunks of their land to settle the bill.
Other farmers have warned that the impending increase in their costs has opened a 'suicide window' for elderly business owners.
Shortly after Ms Reeves's announcement in November, Jeremy Clarkson led a protest that saw him address a crowd of around 10,000 people in Westminster.
The former Top Gear host runs the Oxfordshire Diddly Squat farm and is the star of the Clarkson's Farm reality television show, which chronicles the challenges faced by the agricultural industry.
Farmers are also struggling with the soaring cost of fertiliser and a poor harvest after the recent drought and floods last year.
Heatwaves across parts of the country have left growers fearing a record-low yield for their crop and vegetable harvest.
The hot weather came on top of the pressures of increased employers' National Insurance contributions and the raising of the minimum wage.
The British Growers Association said this week that the current summer was 'proving to be yet another climatic challenge for growers', with some regions especially badly-hit.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Locals in Epping have welcomed an injunction to block asylum seekers from being housed at a nearby hotel, but raised concerns the decision would only 'kick the can down the road'. Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Comedian hits out at London's E-bike licensing creating ‘Checkpoint Charlies'
Conflicting council decisions on electric bike licensing have created a "Checkpoint Charlie" situation near London bridges, according to comedian Dara O Briain. The Irish stand-up highlighted the issue of e-bikes "stacking up" at river crossings between the boroughs of Hounslow and Richmond in west London. Hounslow has granted permission for Forest and Voi's e-bikes to operate within its boundaries, while Richmond has licensed rival company Lime. This disparity means riders face a "patchwork of boundaries", preventing seamless travel across boroughs. Lime, one of the rental companies, has urged councils to collaborate to resolve the issue. The latter said it has agreed to a request by Hounslow for its bikes' electric motors to cut out if riders enter the borough. This causes the bikes to become heavy to ride, resulting in many users ending their trips. The PA news agency saw about 30 bikes near the southern entrance to Chiswick Bridge on Monday night. Some were parked appropriately to the side of pavements, but others had been thrown in bushes or tipped over. O Briain, 53, likened the issue to the Checkpoint Charlie border crossing point between East and West Berlin during the Cold War. In a post on social media platform X, he wrote: 'Hounslow Council have banned Lime bikes, and licensed Forest and Voi; neighbouring Richmond has licensed Lime and banned the others. 'So every bridge is Checkpoint Charlie, with loads of Lime bikes parked on one side and loads of Forest and Voi on the other. Top work everyone!' Richard Dilks, chief executive of shared transport charity CoMoUK, said: 'This rather bizarre set of circumstances is an unfortunate outcome of the current situation in London, where regulation of bike sharing schemes is decided at borough level.' He said the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill going through Parliament could make Transport for London the capital's licensing authority for rental e-bikes, enabling a 'more coherent pan-London approach' to be designed. A spokesperson for Lime said the existing scenario is 'frustrating for riders'. She said: 'We've already been contacted by many of them who are disappointed at the new rules. 'They should not have to experience London as a patchwork of boundaries. 'We want to see councils work together so that residents can travel seamlessly across boroughs, without having to stop at borders.' Alex Berwin, head of policy at Forest, said the issue is 'exactly why we have been calling for a pan-London approach to regulation'. He went on: 'We need a single regulatory framework, one enforcement model and one operational rulebook across the capital, whilst ensuring services support the local needs of each borough.' A Voi spokesperson said its users are 'free to cycle across borough boundaries, but parking must be in designated bays within participating areas'. He added: 'We're working with local leaders and TfL towards a London-wide scheme to make cross-borough journeys simpler.' Rental e-bike companies say they encourage people to switch from cars to a more sustainable form of travel, but there have been long-standing concerns about users blocking pavements with the bikes after they finish their rides. A spokesperson for Hounslow Council said: 'The issue of neighbouring boroughs having different e-bike operators is not unique to Hounslow. This is an issue at many boundaries wherever there is a change in operator. E-bike service areas are dynamic, with boroughs deciding to review operators at different points. 'We recognise that a borough-by-borough approach can be confusing for users and we continue to work closely with Transport for London and neighbouring boroughs to make the case to the Department for Transport for a pan-London approach. In the meantime, we are bringing in new measures to ensure e-bikes are better managed when left at the end of a journey.'


Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
What High Court hotel ruling means for migrants across Britain
On Tuesday, Epping Forest district council was granted a temporary injunction to stop migrants from being housed in the Bell Hotel. All migrants must now leave the hotel by 4pm on September 12. But the ruling could have a wider impact on migrant hotels across the country. Q: Will all migrant hotels in Britain now close? A: No – the interim injunction only applies to the Bell Hotel in Epping. Other hotels with contracts to house asylum seekers will be able to continue to do so. However, Epping Forest district council's victory could prompt other local authorities to submit similar legal applications. Q: Why are so many migrants being housed in hotels? A: In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of 'contingency' asylum accommodation because of the limited availability of private dwellings and hostels. In most cases, this consists of hotel rooms, procured through government contracts for the use of asylum seekers. A backlog of asylum cases and rising numbers of Channel migrant crossings have contributed to large numbers of asylum seekers being housed in hotel accommodation over the past five years. Q: What is Yvette Cooper's statutory duty to asylum seekers on accommodation? A: The Home Secretary is required to provide accommodation and subsistence support to all destitute asylum seekers whilst their claims are being decided. These legal obligations are set out under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Support under section 95 of the Act is provided for people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim or appeal. Section 98 support is provided while a person's eligibility for section 95 asylum support is being considered. Q: What will the Government do next? A: Lawyers representing Ms Cooper made a last-minute legal application to intervene in the case ahead of the judgment. However, Mr Justice Eyre rejected the application. Angela Eagle, the border security minister, said the Government would 'carefully consider this judgment', adding: 'As this matter remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.' However, lawyers for the Home Office confirmed that they would seek to appeal against the injunction. Q: How many migrants are in the Bell Hotel? A: The Bell Hotel has 80 rooms and can currently accommodate up to 138 asylum seekers. Following a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Eyre ordered Somani Hotels Ltd to stop housing any new migrant residents while the judgment was pending. Q: What crimes are alleged to have been committed by Bell Hotel migrants? A: Three residents are currently facing criminal charges. Hadush Gerbeslaisie Kebatu, 41, was arrested after allegedly sexually assaulting a schoolgirl on July 7, days after arriving in Britain. The Ethiopian denied all wrongdoing when he was charged and appeared at Chelmsford magistrates' court on July 17. Kebatu's arrest prompted a series of protests at the hotel. However, Mr Justice Eyre's judgment on the hotel also referenced the arrest of two other residents. Last month, Rawand Abdulrih, 36, was charged with arson with intent to endanger life over an incident that took place at the hotel on April 5. Abdulrih was also charged with the same offence in relation to a separate fire at the Phoenix Hotel, another migrant hotel nearby, on March 28. Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, another resident of the Bell Hotel, is accused of kissing a man on the neck on July 25. In court last week, he denied a charge of sexually assaulting a man aged over 16 by touching him in a sexual way without consent. Q: What legal argument did the council use to secure the interim injunction? A: Epping Forest district council largely hung its argument on planning laws and the fact that Somani Hotels had not obtained permission to change the use of the hotel to an accommodation for asylum seekers. Q: Is it a permanent injunction? A: It is an interim injunction, which means it is not permanent but granted temporarily ahead of a full hearing, which is set to take place in the autumn. Lawyers for the hotel firm and the Home Secretary confirmed in court that they intended to appeal against the injunction. If appeals are submitted quickly, the Court of Appeal may decide to grant the residents a further stay before they are evicted.