Farmers criticise Labour-backing Iceland boss for staying silent on tax raid
Campaign group No Farmers, No Food called on Richard Walker to support the industry after Iceland failed to echo concerns raised by almost every other major supermarket.
Mr Walker had previously been a donor to the Conservatives, but changed allegiance to Labour in January last year. At the time, he branded the Tories 'out of touch'.
No Farmers, No Food said: 'It's heartening to see the majority of major supermarkets supporting farmers in their campaign against the Government's inheritance tax on family farms. But why haven't Iceland Foods done the same? It's time for all our major supermarkets to unite for farmers.'
It comes after a series of public statements from retailers including Tesco, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons, where chiefs have demanded Ms Reeves halts a plan to overhaul death duties for farmers.
Ashwin Prasad, Tesco's chief commercial officer, this month said the planned raid on farmers would put Britain's food security at risk.
Waitrose, meanwhile, said the Government needed to listen to farmers on this issue, adding that rural communities 'are not an optional part' of Britain.
The pressure on Iceland to clarify its stance comes just months after Mr Walker – who once sought to become a Tory MP – broke ranks with other retail leaders over the Budget.
He told The Telegraph that companies ought to stop 'wallowing' and 'complaining' about the Chancellor's tax raid on employers' National Insurance.
Speaking about supermarket chiefs attacking the National Insurance changes, Mr Walker said: 'This isn't a time for businesses to wallow ... The Government isn't going to change its mind. It was a tough Budget, but we adapt.'
Mr Walker also said he was confident Ms Reeves was listening to business before the Budget, telling the Telegraph last summer: 'She's a grown-up. She knows she can't just mete out punishment on big business. She knows she's reliant on them for the growth agenda.'
As well as announcing the employer changes at the Budget, the Chancellor also unveiled plans to make farms worth more than £1m liable for 20pc inheritance tax from April 2026. Agricultural businesses were previously exempt from death taxes.
The National Farmers' Union has argued that 75pc of farm businesses could be impacted, with other industry estimates suggesting 2,500 farmers a year will be hit by the overhaul, five times as many as official forecasts. The Treasury argues only 500 estates a year will pay more under the new scheme than they do today.
Rural groups said they needed retail chiefs to come out clearly to support the sector.
Mo Metcalf-Fisher, of the Countryside Alliance, said: 'The time to speak up is now, before it's too late.
'As the distressing ramifications of the proposed inheritance tax changes to family farms become clearer, more and more businesses are rightly opting to stand with farmers in a common-sense call to the Treasury for an urgent policy rethink.
'Supermarkets across the board, as well as major brands in the wider food and hospitality industry, should be thinking about their supply chains and their long-term ability to meet the growing consumer demand for food and drink produced in this country. This won't happen if we lose family farms and further rely on imports.'
A government spokesman said: 'Our commitment to farmers remains steadfast – we have committed £5bn to the farming budget over two years, including more money than ever for sustainable food production, and we are developing a 25-year farming roadmap, focusing on how to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come.
'Our reforms to agricultural and business property reliefs will mean estates will pay a reduced effective inheritance tax rate of 20pc, rather than standard 40pc, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free. This is a fair and balanced approach, which fixes the public services we all rely on, affecting around 500 estates next year.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Stephen A. Smith suggests support for federal investigation into WNBA for treatment of Caitlin Clark
Stephen A. Smith responded to a recent opinion piece by the Wall Street Journal that called for a government investigation into the WNBA for the controversial handling of physical plays against superstar Caitlin Clark. The Wall Street Journal piece titled "The WNBA and Caitlin Clark's Civil Rights" drew mixed reactions this week after it argued that Clark has been subject to a hostile workplace due to how referees have called physical plays against her dating back her rookie season in 2024. The piece called for a federal probe into "potential civil rights violations." Smith suggested support for a potential investigation. "I'm not here saying the case will be won by the government if it gets to the points. I'm saying they have a case, they have an argument," Smith said of the idea during an episode of his show on Tuesday. Smith also suggested President Donald Trump could use such an investigation to solidify support among his followers. "Do we doubt that at his discretion, at his disposal, if he finds this to be an issue that is politically expedient to him, that Trump won't use this to feed his base?" Smith said. "If [Clark] is seen to be physically getting abused on the basketball court in a way that is such a clear and flagrant discrepancy compared to what happens to others, that that man is not going to say something? "You don't think Catilin Clark could become an issue of national, potentially international, and definitely federal proportions?" Smith cited recent agreements by Columbia University and Harvard University with Trump's administration to settle alleged civil rights violations against Jewish students and employees as a comparison for a potential probe into the WNBA's treatment of Clark. "If the Trump administration can settle with Columbia for a $221 million settlement over what's taken place on a campus, you think you can definitively rule out what kind of noise could be made if the WNBA continues to allow this treatment of Caitlin Clark?" Smith said. Clark's teammate, Fever star Sophie Cunningham, has been one of the most vocal critics of the WNBA players and referees in the physical treatment of Clark and how it is handled. Cunningam revealed how her former team, the Phoenix Mercury, planned to play Clark during the phenom's rookie season in 2024. Cunningham played her first five seasons in Phoenix before leaving to join the Fever this past offseason. "You have seen players in our league try to, like, toughen up Caitlin… Even when I wasn't on her team, I know the talks that Phoenix had in the locker room, like, 'No, we're going to show her what the W really is,' and I get it to a certain extent, and every rookie coming into the league, that's how you're going to treat 'em, but there's just more for her," Cunningham said on her podcast last week. "And now being on her team and seeing it, I'm like, 'What are people doing?' Actually, it's just too much. It's too much. I'm over it, and if I think it's too much, it's probably too much." Cunningham was on the other side of the situation when she started a fight to defend Clark during a game against the Connecticut Sun earlier this season. Cunningham said that after the game, Clark exclaimed "finally!" in the locker room. "In the locker room, she goes, I think she's like, 'Finally!'" Cunningham said. "But I think it kind of had our team together as a whole. Everyone was like, 'We do have to protect eachother.'" The scuffle went down in Connecticut on June 17, when Cunningham committed a hard foul on Sun guard Jacy Sheldon. Sheldon poked Clark in the eye earlier in the game, and then fellow Sun player Marina Mabrey shoved Clark to the ground. Cunningham previously called out referees just days after the June 17 fight while speaking to reporters, for not protecting Clark, when she had to first address the fight publicly. "During that, it was just part of the game. I think the refs had a lot to do with that. It was a build-up for a couple years now of them just not protecting the star player of the WNBA," Cunningham said. "At the end of the day, I'm going to protect my teammates. That's what I do."
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
VA terminates key union contracts
The Department of Veterans Affairs is terminating collective bargaining agreements with several key government unions representing its employees. In an announcement Wednesday, the VA said the move is in response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March that nixed collective bargaining rights for many federal workers in the name of national security. The agency's decision comes after a federal appellate court lifted a lower court ban on the ending of union contracts on Friday, although the Trump administration previously issued guidance that agencies should not terminate any collective bargaining agreements until litigation challenging the order is over. 'Too often, unions that represent VA employees fight against the best interests of Veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,' VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. 'We're making sure VA resources and employees are singularly focused on the job we were sent here to do: providing top-notch care and service to those who wore the uniform.' The VA said it notified five major unions that their contracts for 'bargaining-unit employees' were being terminated: the American Federation of Government Employees; the National Association of Government Employees; the National Federation of Federal Employees; the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United; and the Service Employees International Union. Contracts covering the roughly 4,000 VA police officers, firefighters or security guards represented by those unions will remain in place, the agency said. The VA said the move will allow staff to 'spend more time with Veterans,' noting that in 2024, nearly 2,000 union employees 'spent more than 750,000 hours of work on taxpayer-funded union time.' Without those obligations, 'those hours can now be used to serve Veterans instead of union bosses,' the agency said. The move will also open up more physical space for veterans' needs, the VA said. 'More than 187,000 square feet of its office and clinical space is currently being used by union representatives free of charge,' the agency said, adding that it has 'cost VA millions of dollars in lost rent and expenses.' The agency also says labor contracts have restricted managers' ability to hire, promote and reward high performing employees and to hold poor performers accountable. The move was met with outrage by at least two of the top unions representing VA employees. AFGE, which represents 320,000 employees at the agency, said it is assessing its options to challenge Collins' move. 'Secretary Collins' decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of its workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement. He noted that Collins' action is 'inconsistent' with Office of Personnel Management guidance instructing agencies to hold off on ending union agreements while the legal challenges played out. Those losing their representation by AFGE and several other unions include nurses, doctors, housekeepers, maintenance, food service workers, lawyers, mental health specialists, cemetery workers and others, according to AFGE. NNU, the largest union of registered nurses in the country, said the VA's announcement to terminate its contract and those of the other unions 'is an attack on those who dedicate their lives in the service of others.' 'We know this administration is hellbent on silencing nurses and other VA workers to steamroll the destruction of the VA,' the nurses' union said in a statement to CNN. 'It is because of VA nurses' ability to speak up about patient safety through our union that our nation's veterans receive the highest level of care.' NNU says it will 'continue to pursue legal action with our fellow unions.' The department's move comes just days after a federal appeals court in California lifted a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked several federal agencies from canceling certain union contracts. Trump's expansive executive order applies to more than 1 million federal workers across many agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions that have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It noted that the largest union – AFGE – has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' 'President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests,' the fact sheet said. The two largest federal employee unions – AFGE and the National Treasury Employees Union – sued in separate courts, saying Trump was retaliating for their advocacy for their members and for federal services. The unions were initially successful in blocking the order in separate federal district courts, but they each lost on the appellate level. NNU, as well as other unions, joined AFGE in its lawsuit against the executive order.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
VA terminates key union contracts
The Department of Veterans Affairs is terminating collective bargaining agreements with several key government unions representing its employees. In an announcement Wednesday, the VA said the move is in response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March that nixed collective bargaining rights for many federal workers in the name of national security. The agency's decision comes after a federal appellate court lifted a lower court ban on the ending of union contracts on Friday, although the Trump administration previously issued guidance that agencies should not terminate any collective bargaining agreements until litigation challenging the order is over. 'Too often, unions that represent VA employees fight against the best interests of Veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,' VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. 'We're making sure VA resources and employees are singularly focused on the job we were sent here to do: providing top-notch care and service to those who wore the uniform.' The VA said it notified five major unions that their contracts for 'bargaining-unit employees' were being terminated: the American Federation of Government Employees; the National Association of Government Employees; the National Federation of Federal Employees; the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United; and the Service Employees International Union. Contracts covering the roughly 4,000 VA police officers, firefighters or security guards represented by those unions will remain in place, the agency said. The VA said the move will allow staff to 'spend more time with Veterans,' noting that in 2024, nearly 2,000 union employees 'spent more than 750,000 hours of work on taxpayer-funded union time.' Without those obligations, 'those hours can now be used to serve Veterans instead of union bosses,' the agency said. The move will also open up more physical space for veterans' needs, the VA said. 'More than 187,000 square feet of its office and clinical space is currently being used by union representatives free of charge,' the agency said, adding that it has 'cost VA millions of dollars in lost rent and expenses.' The agency also says labor contracts have restricted managers' ability to hire, promote and reward high performing employees and to hold poor performers accountable. The move was met with outrage by at least two of the top unions representing VA employees. AFGE, which represents 320,000 employees at the agency, said it is assessing its options to challenge Collins' move. 'Secretary Collins' decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of its workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement. He noted that Collins' action is 'inconsistent' with Office of Personnel Management guidance instructing agencies to hold off on ending union agreements while the legal challenges played out. Those losing their representation by AFGE and several other unions include nurses, doctors, housekeepers, maintenance, food service workers, lawyers, mental health specialists, cemetery workers and others, according to AFGE. NNU, the largest union of registered nurses in the country, said the VA's announcement to terminate its contract and those of the other unions 'is an attack on those who dedicate their lives in the service of others.' 'We know this administration is hellbent on silencing nurses and other VA workers to steamroll the destruction of the VA,' the nurses' union said in a statement to CNN. 'It is because of VA nurses' ability to speak up about patient safety through our union that our nation's veterans receive the highest level of care.' NNU says it will 'continue to pursue legal action with our fellow unions.' The department's move comes just days after a federal appeals court in California lifted a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked several federal agencies from canceling certain union contracts. Trump's expansive executive order applies to more than 1 million federal workers across many agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions that have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It noted that the largest union – AFGE – has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' 'President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests,' the fact sheet said. The two largest federal employee unions – AFGE and the National Treasury Employees Union – sued in separate courts, saying Trump was retaliating for their advocacy for their members and for federal services. The unions were initially successful in blocking the order in separate federal district courts, but they each lost on the appellate level. NNU, as well as other unions, joined AFGE in its lawsuit against the executive order.
