Ex-NFU chief who said tractor tax will ‘wipe out family farms' hired to lead government review into UK farming
A former National Farmers' Union (NFU) chief who previously warned the so-called ' tractor tax' would 'wipe out the family farm' has been hired by the government to lead a review into British farming.
As part of the government's latest attempt to show they are listening to farmers and rebuild trust within the community, environment secretary Steve Reed has now hired Baroness Minette Batters, who has previously voiced opposition to the extension of inheritance tax to family farms, to lead a review of farm profitability.
The review, which will see the cross-bench peer provide recommendations to the department, is aimed at helping to ensure the farming sector is 'more viable, self-sustaining and competitive in the long-term'.
It comes less than six months after the former NFU chief warned the so-called 'tractor tax' will 'wipe out the family farm', warning that the levy is 'devoid of understanding of how the rural economy functions'.
Writing for Country Life magazine in December, Baroness Batters – who worked for the union for ten years – expressed 'grave concerns about advice given by the Treasury to the government' and accused civil servants of having failed to engage with Defra when developing the plans.
'Farmers feel betrayed and trust must be rebuilt. There has been no coherent plan for five years now; no wonder farmer confidence is at an all-time low', she warned.
Ms Batters added: 'I don't believe this government set out to wipe out the family farm as we know it. Yet it will be the consequence, unless a solution is found.'
In a statement announcing her appointment, Baroness Batters said she will 'leave no stone unturned in trying to find solutions to boost farm profitability', but warned: 'We should be under no illusions how difficult this work will be'.
'There will not be one 'silver bullet' to fire but I'm hopeful this review can make a difference to a sector that produces the nation's food, underpins the rural economy and delivers so much for the environment', she said.
'I'm pleased to be appointed to lead this review and look forward to working with farmers and growers to provide recommendations to government, food retailers, processors and manufacturers.'
Environment secretary Steve Reed said he is 'delighted to appoint Baroness Batters', saying her 'years of experience as a leader during a time of great change in British agriculture make her uniquely placed to provide recommendations on tackling the deep-rooted problems holding the sector back and support farmers' long-term profits.'
'Backing British farmers is the backbone of all work to support rural economic growth and boost Britain's food security', he said.
'We have taken strong action to protect the future of the sector with the New Deal for Farmers. But we must go further and faster as part of our Plan for Change to put money into the pockets of farmers and drive growth.'
It comes after months of protests and discontent from rural communities over the extension of 20 per cent inheritance tax to farms valued at £1m or more, with a review last month warning that more than 200,000 jobs could be lost because of the tax.
The move would also cost the economy £14.9bn, according to a study by the independent consultancy CBI-Economics, which was commissioned by the group Family Business UK and looked at more than 4,000 businesses and farms across the country.
Nearly a quarter of family businesses - 23 per cent - and almost one in five family farms - 17 per cent - said they had cut jobs or halted recruitment since the planned tax was announced in the October budget.
Just under half of family farms - 49 per cent - said they have also paused or cancelled planned investments.
But ministers have defended the changes, saying that they had to take 'difficult decisions' in the wake of what Labour says is a £22bn black hole in the public finances left by the last Tory government.
The Treasury says with tax allowances, in reality, only farms worth £3m would be affected - which is 28 per cent of family farms. But official Defra figures appear to suggest as many as 66 per cent could be hit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations
The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, has taken measures following Donald Trump's move to issue evacuation orders for non-essential personnel The UK has issued an "unusual warning" to its commercial ships in the Middle East amid "rising tensions". The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) fears "an escalation of military activity" is on the cards across the region, and believs security may be at risk. It says vessels must use the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz, all of which pass Iran, with caution for the forseeable future. Iran publicly threatened to attack US military bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. Donald Trump added fuel to the fire yesterday, crassly stating the country will never have a nuclear weapon whether a deal is reached or not. 'UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution," the UKMTO said today. The Trump administration has issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the US Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also told FOX News there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. This discourse led to the UKMTO advisory today as regional tensions surged. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the US to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary. But Mr Trump was pessimistic when interviewed earlier this week. The US President said: "I don't know. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made." He spoke on the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, which explored in depth the tense situation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, suspected US airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen killed at least three people recently. Yemeni rebels said they shot down a £25m Reaper attack drone during April's onslaught, which indicated a possible US attack on Iran. It happened after the US moved six of its prized B-2 Strategic Stealth bombers to the secretive Indo-Pacific island base of Diego Garcia. Hours after the surprise announcement of the Washington-Tehran talks, Iran's foreign minister said the conversation in Oman would be "indirect" but could be "as much an opportunity as... a test." Mr Trump - who pulled the US out a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers during his first term - said discussions would be at "very high level," as he delivered his warning to Tehran.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
OnlyFans is giving HMRC what it wants
Fenix International occupies the ninth floor of an innocuous office block on London's Cheapside. The street's name comes from the Old English for marketplace, and once upon a time Cheapside was just that: London's biggest meat market with butcher shops lining either side of the road. Today, the street houses financial institutions and corporate HQs. But Fenix still runs a marketplace. Some may even call it a meat market, albeit one that operates on the phones of hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Its name: OnlyFans. OnlyFans is best understood not just as a porn site, but as a social media platform with a paywall. Creators – mostly women – post photos, videos and voice notes behind monthly subscriptions. Users pay extra to tip the women, customise content and have one-to-one chats with their favourite models. Not everything on OnlyFans is X-rated, but that's the content that makes the money. An entire ecosystem has grown around OnlyFans since it was founded nine years ago by two British brothers, Tim and Thomas Stokely. One 'e-pimp' explained that successful models outsource much of their work to offshore call centres to give the illusion of intimacy with customers. Low-paid workers in Venezuela or the Philippines are hired to impersonate creators over text chats, maintaining dozens, even hundreds, of relationships with lonely men. OnlyFans' profits are enormous. In 2023, it generated nearly £5 billion in sales – up more than 2,000 per cent in four years. The company paid £127 million in tax last year, £110 million of that in corporation tax. Because Fenix is based in London, the bulk of that cash is flowing straight into the Treasury. For comparison: Britain's fishing industry – supposedly a red-line issue in Brexit – brings in just £876 million and pays next to nothing in corporation tax, while also receiving £180 million a year in tax concessions. We don't think of OnlyFans as a media company (if we think of it at all) and so we ignore what it is in business terms: a staggering success. With more than four million 'content creators' and 305 million subscribers, it would easily rank in the top three British publishing companies. It is perhaps the most successful creator-based subscription service ever. Traditional platforms can't compete – OnlyFans' revenues are twice that of North America's Aylo, which operates the world's biggest porn websites. Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting. The Office for National Statistics estimates Britons spend in excess of £6 billion annually on it. It is one of the few British industries which remains a net (digital) exporter. Indeed, OnlyFans is perhaps the strongest unicorn (a privately held start-up worth more than $1 billion) in the country. It's more profitable than any other British tech start-up. And it's doing something our other digital start-ups can't: exporting to America while keeping tax revenues onshore. Two-thirds of its revenue now comes from the US, proving that even in a global tech economy dominated by Silicon Valley, British firms can still compete. OnlyFans' success makes it all the more striking that, according to Reuters, Fenix is in talks to sell. Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company is leading a group of investors in negotiations to buy the business for £6 billion. It's rumoured that other suitors are vying for attention and that shares may be sold on the stock market. Either way, one of Britain's few successful exports could soon be gone. It's awkward to defend pornography, and so politicians don't try. Parliament hosts thousands of lobbying events every year – payday lenders, bookies, vape companies, even arms dealers turn up for drinks and canapés. There is no 'sex tech reception'. Ministers fall over themselves to visit impressive-looking factories that are in fact barely relevant. For example, Glass Futures, a research and production plant for the glass industry based in St Helens, was recently picked by Keir Starmer as the perfect location for his speech decrying 'Farage's fantasy economics'. The plant is a not-for-profit that makes £7 million in annual sales. OnlyFans pays more in tax in a month than Glass Futures earns in a year. But no MP would be caught dead at OnlyFans' Cheapside HQ, despite, I'm told, many invitations to visit. Neither has any politician ever defended the porn industry in a debate on innovation, exports or growth. The most recent House of Lords research note on 'the impact of pornography on society' contains no mention of the words 'economy', 'tax' or 'finance'. Of course, money isn't everything. The harms of porn – to women, to relationships, to the minds of teenage boys – are real and considerable. We might well be better off banning the whole thing. But if we are going to wage a moral war on porn, we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing. The money is real – and it's already in the bank of HMRC.
