
Labour backbenchers call for ‘meaningful tweaks' to farm inheritance tax plan
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced calls for 'meaningful tweaks' to planned inheritance tax on farmland from Labour MPs.
Sam Rushworth said that farmers who work a £5 million estate are 'not millionaires', while Julia Buckley said sector businesses currently face a choice to 'go big or go bust'.
Conservative former Scottish secretary David Mundell warned that under plans to impose inheritance tax on agricultural property worth more than £1 million, farmers' children will sell their land to private equity firms to cover the bill, and estates would instead be used for solar panels or industrial tree planting.
They made their comments during a debate about a House of Commons petition which called on Treasury ministers to carry on with a 100% relief from inheritance tax covering agricultural property.
The discussion began just minutes after the petition gathered its 150,000th signature, and while farmers lined Whitehall and Parliament Square outside the Palace of Westminster, blasting their horns to the tune of Old MacDonald Had A Farm and Europe's number-one hit The Final Countdown.
Mr Rushworth told MPs: 'If you inherit a £5 million farm, you're not a millionaire, you're the custodian of agricultural land with the responsibility to farm it to produce food for the nation.'
The MP for Bishop Auckland suggested the previous government could have better supported 'things like trade deals, supply chains, flood defences and on crime', adding: 'They want to stop billionaires, to quote The Telegraph, from hoovering up agricultural land which they know is pushing up land prices.
'And they even support the principle of paying tax and raising revenue for the Treasury, because they know that Treasury revenue is necessary to improve the NHS and to improve schools in their communities, as well as a strong agricultural budget.
'But they are asking, and they're not asking, by the way, for a full U-turn, but they are asking for some meaningful tweaks that will help the policy to better target the goals that it intends to achieve.'
He said that the £1 million threshold, with inheritance tax applied at a rate of 20% above on land worth more than this from April 2026, 'is quite low'.
Ms Buckley said: 'My farmers in my Shrewsbury constituency have told me that for many years now, they've struggled to make a profit.
'Indeed, they say the only game in town is to go big or go bust, in other words, 12,000 small farmers have gone under because over the last decade, it's not been a profitable business.
'And they say to me that they're ready to make some of these behavioural changes to pass the asset down to the next generation, so it can be profitable and sustainable and environmentally friendly, because that next generation have just come out of agricultural college and learned all these new techniques.'
David Smith, the Labour MP for North Northumberland, said that few farms in his constituency would fall below the £1 million threshold and be exempted from the tax.
'The value of the land is often not bearing a relation to the limited cashflow or profit that is being made,' he said, adding that 'raising the threshold would provide instant peace of mind to family farmers'.
Mr Smith also suggested an 'active farmer test' using Government data to 'judge if the land is being put to public use', and proposed a 'clawback' system so the Treasury could charge for the relief if a farmer's beneficiary sells the land within a short period of time after a death.
Mr Mundell warned farms 'will not be sold to new family farmers'.
He continued: 'They will be sold to these very private equity firms who want not to produce food on our land, but want to actually maximise other tax benefits that they can do under carbon offset and other environmental tax benefits that they get.
'And in addition to that, they don't employ anyone.'
Turning to the issue of tax planning, Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Dyke warned some older farmers might find it difficult to swerve an expensive bill by putting in place 'the transitional restructure to their affairs', for example, by gifting property to their heirs more than seven years before they die.
The MP for Glastonbury and Somerton sighed after she told MPs: 'The stress this is putting on those families, I myself am from a farming family.
'My mother is 81, my father died just about a year ago.
'The pressure this is putting on her to think whether she can survive another seven years is so distressing and I know she is not alone.'
Conservative shadow environment minister Robbie Moore described the policy as 'purposefully vindictive', adding: 'The Government's actual intent is to send a strong message out to our farmers that they are not needed, that they do not matter, that they do not play a vital part in our national agenda.'
Responding, Treasury minister James Murray warned the current inheritance tax exemption for farmers is 'skewed towards the wealthiest estates', with 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief according to the latest Government data.
He said: 'What has driven the Government in making the decision to reform agricultural and business property relief is the overwhelming priority of fixing the public finances whilst doing so in a way that is fair and sustainable.'
Mr Murray added the Government had committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, £60 million to help farmers affected by wet weather last year, and £2.4 billion over two years to help rebuild 'crumbling flood defences'.
He recalled 'media speculation' before last October's budget that the Government might axe the reliefs altogether, and said the Treasury had considered representations from the farming sector 'in reaction to that speculation'.
Hashtags

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


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.

Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Senedd called to act on 'existential crisis' of abuse
Plaid Cymru's Adam Price, the first out-gay man in his party to be elected to national office, warned prejudices based on sex, race and sexual orientation have been reinvigorated. He told the Senedd: "It is getting worse by the day, and it really represents an existential crisis for our democracy and our society." Mr Price said: "For our democracy to be effective, it has to be diverse. "Diversity trumps ability. "It's a piece of evidence in social science." The former Plaid Cymru leader called for a focus on representation of trans women and men, a community "under siege," to ensure their voices are heard in the Senedd. Mr Price highlighted harmful comments below news stories involving him in recent weeks. "That certainly won't deter me and I hope it won't deter anyone else," he said. "But we've got to do something about it collectively, haven't we?" Labour's Hannah Blythyn expressed concerns that Wales could go backwards in terms of equality of representation at the next Senedd election. Ms Blythyn told Senedd members: "I very much made an active decision when I had the opportunity to stand in this legislature because of the make-up – that there were more women here, that it was more representative." Jane Hutt, Wales' social justice secretary, acknowledged the rise of abuse, harassment and intimidation towards politicians, candidates and campaigners. She outlined voluntary diversity and inclusion guidance for political parties which aims to ensure democratic bodies are truly representative of all the people of Wales. Ms Hutt said safety costs will be exempt from spending limits for Welsh elections. Conservative Altaf Hussain warned guidance on equal representation risks crossing a dangerous line. He said: "Equality of access cannot come just by bureaucratic diktats or targets." Plaid Cymru's Sioned Williams said progress on underrepresentation of women in politics has slowed, warning the voluntary guidance was published "far too late." "Wales belongs to everyone," she said. "Everyone must have a voice in our nation's future."