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 backbenchers.
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 said that 'there was more that could have been done by the previous government on things like trade deals, supply chains, flood defences and on crime', adding: 'They have no problem with the principle, with the principle that we should be closing tax loopholes.
'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 said: 'If we go down the route of requiring farms to be sold to meet inheritance tax demands, farms will not be sold to new family farmers.
'They will not be sold to new entrants. 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.'
Conservative former minister Damian Hinds said it is 'not too late for this minister, for this Government to change their minds, to make significant changes'.
He said: 'There's no shame in it and I urge them to do so.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
My sympathies, Rachel Reeves. Cutting public spending isn't easy
This week's Spending Review will expose the obvious predicament of the Government: there is no money. While Labour will continue to blame the Conservatives, it is responsible for most of what has happened in the past year. Decisions it has made have exacerbated the problem. Right from the beginning of its administration, the Labour Government was strangely committed to increased public train drivers, less than eight weeks after the election, received a 'no strings attached' offer of 15 per cent over three years. Within 48 hours of the deal being broadcast to the world, Aslef announced a fresh campaign of strikes. In addition to the generosity shown to the train drivers, about 1.3 million NHS workers – including nurses and paramedics – and around 500,000 teachers got a pay rise of 5.5 per cent. Junior doctors, who had staged a series of strikes over pay since early 2023, struck a deal which showed an average 22.3 per cent pay rise over two years. You can argue that all this was necessary, but the announcement of these sweetheart deals, after only weeks in government, looked too much like a bargain that had been struck before the election itself. To pay for this largesse, the Labour Government proceeded to revert to a tax policy that many commentators have described as, frankly, Marxist. Marx divided society into three groups, namely landowners, capitalists and workers. The Labour Party pledged not to increase taxes on workers. It raised taxes on employers and farmers instead. It increased national insurance for employees on the former and inheritance taxes on the latter. It didn't realise that putting taxes on employers would harm workers. This point was made by none other than the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that 65 per cent of the £25 billion raid on business would be paid by workers, in the form of higher prices for goods and lower wages. Removing the winter fuel payment from pensioners only made sense to Treasury officials. Yes, it saved approximately £10 billion. But for a Labour Government that vaunted its social-democratic 'values', the policy was a disaster. It went against the core message of the Labour Party – that it was 'caring' and benevolent, even when money was tight. This policy has been reversed. People think politicians embark on U-turns to regain support. This is naive. Politicians know that the damage has been done; the U-turn merely prevents further loss of support. There have been swerves, U-turns and missteps. The backlash from Labour MPs against any suggestion to reduce the welfare bill or reform the system suggests that Reeves will not be able to reduce public expenditure, as she would like. In addition, it is obvious that more money will have to be found for defence. There is an expectation, particularly after President Trump's equivocal statements about US support for Nato, that Labour will have to increase defence spending. The Prime Minister himself has said that he would commit his Government to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP by April 2027. Where will this money come from, if no attempt can be made to constrain welfare spending? Higher taxes, of course. Yet the problem here is that tax levels are already very high. VAT is at 20 per cent; the top rate of tax is at 45 per cent and kicks in at £125,000. Changes to the non-dom regime have resulted in wealthy people leaving the country, and the so-called 'Energy Profits Levy' is now proving to be a major disincentive to invest in the North Sea. A lot of this foolishness can of course be attributed to the last government, of which I was a senior member. The Conservatives, remarkably, introduced the Energy Profits Levy. We changed the non-dom regime – influenced by the Civil Service, I were always told that we had to spend more money. Of course, to our social-democratic establishment, spending more money meant more tax revenues, not by growing the economy and increasing wealth, but by imposing ever higher tax rates. The logic of this cycle will result in new taxes, as there is only so much 'ketchup' you can squeeze out of the existing 'bottles', so to speak. Capital taxes, a mansion tax and increases in capital gains tax will surely be on the menu presented to the Chancellor if, as is likely, growth rates are revised downwards in the autumn. The fiscal situation cannot be understood simply as a result of the past few years. All governments in the Western world have faced increased public expenditure without a commensurate increase in growth rates or national wealth. All Western governments are saddled with welfare payments, exacerbated by high levels of immigration. All except the United States have experienced anaemic growth rates since the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, in the UK, it has been Labour that has been buffeted around more than most other governments, by giving in to spending demands. Much like an overweight man trying – and then promptly giving up – his umpteenth diet, the Government seems to have simply stopped bothering to reduce public expenditure. In this way, the tail of welfare spending starts to wag the dog. The productive economy – indeed all the nation's economic activity – begins to be seen as merely an appendage of the welfare state. It is as though the only justification of economic activity and wealth creation is to pay for ever-increasing welfare spending. This cannot be the right way to run an economy. In fact, for most of British history, entrepreneurialism and innovation have been driven by the private sector. That is what made the UK prosperous. Today, under this Labour Government, public spending will crowd out the private sector. Higher taxes are already stifling productive enterprise. Wealthy people are leaving the country, while our borders seem out of control. The sadness is that this Government has reached this position after less than a year. Who can tell what another four years of the same policies will bring? Higher taxes, higher immigration and flatlining growth seem the most likely outcome. If this happens, the Government will simply be turfed out, like the last government, much to everybody's relief. 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.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chamberlain hoped to ‘avoid worst' as Second World War loomed
Neville Chamberlain wrote 'I still hope we may avoid the worst' six days before the start of the Second World War, a letter has revealed. The former prime minister is infamous for his failed appeasement policy, which saw him offer Adolf Hitler numerous concessions to try to avoid war. Now a newly discovered letter suggests he clung on to the hope his strategy would pay off up until the moment Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1 1939. Writing to Captain William Brass, the Conservative MP, on Aug 26 1939, he said: 'I still hope we may avoid the worst, but if it comes we are thank God prepared for it.' Chamberlain's confidence in Britain's readiness for war would prove to be misplaced as within nine months the Nazis had captured swathes of Europe. More than 330,000 British Expeditionary Force troops had to be hastily evacuated at Dunkirk between May 26 and June 4 1940, to enable Britain to 'fight another day'. The day before Chamberlain's hopeful note, however, Britain had signed the Anglo-Polish military alliance, promising to support Poland if its independence was threatened. Hitler had originally scheduled his invasion of Poland for Aug 26, but when news of the Anglo-Polish pact reached Berlin, he temporarily postponed the attack by six days. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement saw Britain make no response to Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938, a move Winston Churchill warned at the time was a mistake. During a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said: 'The gravity of the annexation of Austria cannot be exaggerated.' Hitler quickly moved on to trying to control the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and by Sept 1928 Chamberlain had flown to Hitler's holiday home to negotiate in person, to no avail. Chamberlain said at the time: 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.' The Munich agreement saw Chamberlain sign over the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany from Oct 1 1938, in exchange for Hitler giving up on plans for further expansion across Europe. Churchill called it a 'total and unmitigated defeat' and it failed to stop Nazi Germany annexing more Czech land, including Prague, and launching an invasion of Poland – which finally sparked war. Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned as prime minister in May 1940, when Churchill stepped up to lead the nation. The one-page letter, on 10 Downing Street letterhead and dated Aug 26 1939, has emerged for sale at RR Auction in Boston, US. It is tipped to fetch $20,000 (£15,000) because of its historical significance. An RR Auction spokesman said: 'Behind the scenes, British diplomats were still scrambling to avert war. Chamberlain hoped that deterrence, through strong alliances and military mobilisation, might still dissuade Hitler. 'At the same time, Britain was accelerating preparations – air raid precautions were being implemented across cities, reservists were being called up, and public morale was being steeled for the possibility of conflict. 'Thus Britain found itself in a state of grim resolve: committed to defending Poland, preparing for war, yet still clinging to fragile hopes that Hitler might yet be deterred. 'Within a week, however, those hopes would be extinguished as Germany launched its invasion of Poland on September 1.' The sale takes place on Wednesday. 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Labour backbenchers have called for a Government U-turn on planned disability benefit cuts, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves restored winter fuel payments to a majority of pensioners. Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
