Inheritance tax changes ‘bad for farmers' focus on environment'
The Government's changes to inheritance tax and other challenges are 'bad' for farmers' focus on reducing their impact, according to the head of the environment watchdog.
Alan Lovell, chairman of the Environment Agency, revealed that farmers caused a record number of pollution incidents in English rivers last year in a slideshow document obtained by the Times.
The slides, which Mr Lovell presented to an audience of landowners at the Rivers' Forum 2025 in Maidenhead last week and have been seen by the PA news agency, outlined figures and a general overview of river pollution incidents in 2024.
Mr Lovell also outlined issues that are distracting farmers in a slide titled: 'Challenges for farmers bad for environmental focus'.
An Environment Agency spokesperson said the Government recognises challenges farmers are facing and that Mr Lovell's comments at the forum were not critical of its policy but rather provided context for the outlined challenges.
One graph in the slides showed there were 77 recorded incidents of 'serious pollutions from agriculture' in England last year – up 54% from 50 the year before and the highest level since the series of records began five years ago.
The increase is likely partly because the Environment Agency has stepped up its annual number of farm inspections, carrying out 4,545 last year on water rules compared to around 1,000 annually in 2020.
These include Chancellor Rachel Reeves's introduction of a 20% inheritance tax on agricultural properties and businesses, which has become a political flashpoint for a struggling industry, sparking major outrage and ongoing tractor protests.
It also pointed to the Government's increase in employers' national insurance and minimum wage, drought and floods in the last two years, issues with the sustainability farming incentive (SFI) and temporary labour restrictions.
The Government abruptly closed the SFI – which sees farmers paid public money for implementing sustainable practices – to applications in March after the money was all spent, with a reformed scheme not set to reopen until early next year.
Mr Lovell said the impact of all these challenges have lead to 'financial pressures' and 'Government nervousness' towards the sector.
Ministers have responded to public anger over the polluted state of England's rivers, seas and lakes with wide-ranging reforms to the water sector, which has been dumping increasing amounts of untreated sewage into waterways during periods of wet and stormy weather.
But agriculture pollution has also contributed to the crisis, with slurry, pesticides run-off and chicken manure washing into rivers, damaging habitats and species.
Rachel Hallows, National Farmers' Union vice president, said: 'As a farming industry, we know there's much more we can do to improve water quality issues but it's a challenge we cannot face alone.
'With the right funding support and regulation that helps not hinders, farmers can invest in their businesses and continue the great work that's already being carried out to better soil health and carefully manage how much manure and fertiliser is applied to fields.
'This is all about futureproofing our use of water. With the right approach and investment, we can not only keep delivering sustainable and affordable food and economic growth for this country but can also be transformative for water quality.'
The Environment Agency spokesperson said: 'We are working with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution and we recognise the challenges farmers are facing, including from increased extreme weather.
'Alan Lovell's comments at the Rivers Forum last week provided context for these challenges; he was not critical of government policy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
DWP Winter fuel payments to return for more pensioners 2025
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' The means-testing of pensioners' winter fuel payments is an issue which has been blamed for contributing to Labour's poor performance in last month's local elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Ms Reeves said that she would set out how to pay for any increase in the threshold for the winter fuel allowance at the next budget. Asked whether she would tell the public if she planned to fund her commitments by raising taxes or cutting spending on other departments, the Chancellor said: 'As we have been clear, on winter fuel we will set out how we will fund that at the next fiscal event. 'We will set out how everything will be paid for at the budget in the autumn but it's important that everything that we do is funded, because that's how people know that we can afford it.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In short, no. Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' Very pleased to just hear the Prime Minister has just said he wants more state pensioners to get Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) and they will work out what they're doing in time for the budget. As I've said since day one, there are two main problems with the way the means testing… Mr Bell said he did not have 'lots to add' to what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had said recently about the allowance. He told the MPs: 'Of course the announcement, as and when it's made, will be made to the House.' Sir Keir recently signalled a partial U-turn over the Government's decision to strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners. The Prime Minister said 'as the economy improves', he wanted to look at widening eligibility for the payments, which are worth up to £300. The pensions minister has ruled out returning winter fuel allowance to all pensioners - our recent poll found 33% wanted to do so, but more (44%) thought they should continue to be means tested, but given to more pensioners than under current rules Results link in following… Officials have been unable to say how many more pensioners would be eligible. The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Pension credit is the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.' He told the MPs: 'I'm not getting into anything about the operation of that but just, you know, I think all of us will have heard from people on lower incomes who didn't receive winter fuel payment this year and I understand the points they've raised. And so we'd like to see wider eligibility.' Put to him that a universal winter fuel payment would be '100% guaranteed' to reach those who needed it, Mr Bell told the committee: 'You have to wait for us to set out the policy and we will engage directly with the point you are raising.' Asked what work had been done with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to assess the practicality of recouping payments from higher rate taxpayers, Mr Bell said: 'We're looking at all of the policy options for how this eligibility can be extended, and when I've got more to tell you about that, I absolutely will.' Recommended reading: Commenting on the hearing, Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said the Government 'now faces a dilemma in determining exactly who should be eligible'. He suggested that one option could be to award the payment to everyone receiving a state pension, clawing the money back from higher income households, potentially through their tax returns. Mr Selby said: 'This might look something like the process for clawing back child benefit for working households, although that has caused mass confusion among taxpayers bamboozled by the complexity of the rules.'
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I bought an abandoned house with no electric for 75p – I've funded renovations by sharing my DIY online
A YOUNG woman has revealed how she transformed an abandoned house and got paid for it in the process. Tia Weston bought the abandoned property for just 75p and quickly got to work with her dad to turn it into her dream home. 3 3 Taking to YouTube, Tia said: "I'm taking you through the full start to finish process of turning this abandoned house into my dream home. "It had no heat, no water, no electricity and it was used for storage for over 30 years. "It was in such bad shape that at one point it was going to be given to the fire department to be burnt down." She said that in total it cost her £29,000 to renovate the property. While some of the money came from selling her previous home, some of the cash came from sharing the renovation journey online. Through posting the transformation on YouTube she was able to get revenue from advertisements to help fund the cost. Tia and her dad had their work cut out for them, some of the wood on the roof had gone rotten and the flooring was also affected. She also had to pay to get the entire house to have electricity running through it as well as new windows because the house was so old. New plumbing also had to be fitted into the house so that Tia could renovate the bathroom. After the basics were done, Tia moved on to clearing the house out and redecorating the space. 3 Mrs Hinch raves about £2 Home Bargains buy that 'adds charm to your garden' & a £10 product that's 'cheaper than Amazon' The house had been left in disarray and used to store wood and old furniture. But she managed to transform it into a colourful modern space for herself. Inside the house, she used a light, pine wood for the floors, doors and finishes to add some much needed light into the home. She used pastel colours throughout to make it more homely as well. Home upgrades that add the most value to a house The best renovation to add value totally depends on your property, the local market and your potential buyers. Zoopla shared a list of upgrades that will instantly add value to your home. Loft conversion - increase of 15% Off-street parking - adds £50,000 to property price New kitchen - increase of 15% Garage conversion - increase of 15% Cellar or basement conversion - increase of 10-15% Open plan living space - increase of 3-5% New bathroom - increase of 3-5% The transformation had left people stunned and they were quick to praise Tia and her dad for their hard work. One person wrote: "The coolest part is that you did this all with your dad. You will always hold this memory in your heart." Another commented: 'I am a 61-year-old lifetime remodeler. You did a GREAT job young lady!" "Well done. You've done an amazing job," penned a third. Meanwhile a fourth said: "I wish more people would renovate instead of tearing down older houses. You all did such a great job!" Someone else added: 'The contrast between where you started and where you ended up is insane! Your hard work has really paid off."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has been reported to UN human rights chiefs over claims it ignores native islanders' desire to return to their homeland. Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there. If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night. But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years. Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns. They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights. The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords. But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally. It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968. The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base. The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia. Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds. The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'. It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.' Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people. 'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'
