logo
Labour backbenchers call for ‘meaningful tweaks' to farm inheritance tax plan

Labour backbenchers call for ‘meaningful tweaks' to farm inheritance tax plan

Independent10-02-2025

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'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review

Telegraph

time12 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review

Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'

Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is

Telegraph

time12 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is

Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.

KKR threat to NHS landlord: Don't give the barbarians a foothold in a sacred public service, says ALEX BRUMMER
KKR threat to NHS landlord: Don't give the barbarians a foothold in a sacred public service, says ALEX BRUMMER

Daily Mail​

time18 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

KKR threat to NHS landlord: Don't give the barbarians a foothold in a sacred public service, says ALEX BRUMMER

Freed from the proposed £4billion rescue of Thames Water, private equity barons KKR have come fizzing back with an upgraded offer for NHS and private healthcare landlords Assura. KKR's latest and final bid of £1.7billion is only marginally better than that from listed rival Primary Health Properties (PHP) but is being recommended by Assura's board. The battle isn't necessarily over, with PHP still looking at options and claiming Chancellor Rachel Reeves's bonanza spending on the NHS as an ally. As has become customary when listed companies seek to vanish from the London stock market, there is extensive waffle from Assura about careful evaluation and fiduciary duty. The latter is investment banker-speak for running up the white flag. In cash terms, the KKR offer, at 52.1p a share, is barely better than the 51.7p bid from PHP. A 39 per cent premium may seem wonderful but given the depressed state of share valuations in London and a recent tech offer with a 96 per cent premium, the KKR deal is hardly effervescent. There is no obligation for Assura to accept either deal. A braver board would have told the private equity plunderers to get lost. Instead, it chose to disparage the alternative 'merger' with PHP, claiming financial and execution risk. The board also argues that the PHP offer would diminish Assura's efforts to support investment in the NHS estate. Who is Assura kidding? KKR fears too much exposure to regulated British assets and the political risk which comes with it as we learned when it pulled out of the near-complete Thames Water deal. Assura also needs to remind itself of how private equity works. Load up target companies with debt, squeeze costs, do some clever financial engineering with the leverage, raise prices or rents and head for the hills. A Government which better understood how highly indebted deals work might be cautious. A reading of the Competition & Markets Authority's work on veterinary services, revealing how the cost to pet owners and farmers has escalated, illustrates the dangers. More market-based private medicine in the UK eases pressure on the NHS. But allowing the barbarians a foothold in a sacred service is unacceptable even if it's wrapped up with tinsel and a bow. Sign of the Zodiac This week's pandemic of bids for Britain's tech crown jewels and skin care specialists rightly has been accompanied by much handwringing. How is it that companies born and bred in UK science and tech struggle to develop into national champions? After all, the City is second only to New York as a financial centre and is home to one of the world's biggest collection of banks and a strong venture capital industry. There ought to be no bars to start-ups or smaller listed firms accessing capital. Freeing up pension funds, allowing them to be more adventurous, ought to help. But swift market access to funding and liquidity is the key. That is why the launch of Pisces, the London Stock Exchange's platform for 'intermittent' capital, a place to come to raise funding and then vanish behind a privacy wall, is an important innovation. Stock exchange group boss David Schwimmer has been promoting the concept for years but freeing it from the weeds of regulatory bureaucracy is not easy. The insistence on broad-based disclosure rules threatened to sideline it. So it is good to learn that the Financial Conduct Authority, in keeping with the growth agenda, has dropped onerous transparency requirements on the environment, shareholder transactions and director pay. These threatened to strangle Pisces at birth. Let the fundraising begin before the rush to the door of UK tech and AI becomes a stampede. Peer pressure It has become something of a thing for Chancellors to name-check colleagues when delivering grand financial statements to the Commons. Rachel Reeves set a record with her pledges to spend, spend, spend in Labour constituencies in the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales. Lonely Weymouth was the only southern town to receive much of a mention. Unlike Southport, it already has a serviceable pier.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store