
‘Farmers aren't death duty dodgers – we can't afford to pay inheritance tax'
In Cumbria, fifth-generation organic dairy farmer, James Robinson, has been racked with worry since Budget day, when Rachel Reeves unveiled
'Whatever they say about protecting family farms, we won't be exempt from the tax, even on a farm of our size – 300 acres,' he says.
The Chancellor's changes to both 'agricultural property relief' and 'business property relief' have lit a fire under rural Britain.
Westminster is on Tuesday ringing with the sound of protest as farmers descend on the capital to make their voices heard.
British farming is already on its knees, and there is anger and confusion about why the new Labour government has decided to single out this beleaguered community.
Robinson is in a partnership with his parents, and is now in the process of working out
Until the day before the Budget, the correct tax advice was to keep the asset until death. But this is no longer viable.
'We emailed our accountant before Rachel Reeves even sat down [on Budget day],' says Robinson. 'What worries me are the unknowns and how things might change again – and I can't see them changing for the better.'
The consequence for the Robinsons is not selling up,
Robinson's son Robert is 20, and since the announcement the family have begun discussing how to get him involved in the partnership. This course of action is essential – the farm could not afford a large tax bill.
'There physically wouldn't be the money in the business,' says Robinson. 'We're not farming because we want to dodge tax, or because we want to have a big investment that we can pass on in land – we have worked tremendously hard for it, with ridiculously long hours.'
'In 20 years' time it'll be me, Robert, and his son or daughter – the knowledge is slowly passed down.'
So, what is the Government trying to do with this policy? Is it maliciously designed to kill the family farm – or does it aim to catch out those who use agricultural land as a tax haven?
If it's the latter, says Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers' Union, 'come out with it, tell us what you want to do [about it], and we will find a solution'.
He met Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury, after the Budget. 'I looked him in the eye and said, 'what is the question you've asked yourself? If you give me the question I can tell you.' But he doesn't know the question.'
If, as is suspected, the Government intends to crack down on those who
In her Budget speech, Reeves said her reforms would 'continue to protect small family farms' and claimed three quarters of estates 'will be unaffected by these changes'.
But farmers are convinced that the Government has got its sums wrong.
Nearly one in five (17pc) of UK farms failed to make a profit in 2022-23, according to the Country Land and Business Association, while 59pc made a profit of less than £50,000.
Simon Gadd is another of the thousands of farmers across the country panicking about what the future holds. He's taken advantage of unseasonably warm November weather to drill winter wheat and beans.
The view across his Lincolnshire fields is idyllic, but Gadd is trying to work out just how his family would be able to
With his father, he runs his family's 400-acre farm near Boston, where the Gadds have farmed since the fens were drained.
The family certainly cannot afford a tax bill of the magnitude that would be created by the new policy – even if land locally sells for an 'unusually cheap' £11,000 an acre.
The answer is likely to be a life insurance policy, or a mortgage, but both incur extra costs. He doesn't understand what Reeves is trying to achieve with this policy: 'She said that none of these taxes would go on to working people.'
But if Gadd – one half of a two-man band, who is not just a farmer but a mechanic, a marketer, a handyman, an electrician, and a father too – isn't a working person, then who is?
Last year, so much of the Gadds farm flooded that they were only able to harvest 60pc of their wheat, and as such did not make a profit.
'This policy change is going to impact almost every single viable farm,' says Joe Evans, vice-president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA).
'The 7pc [according to the Treasury, the total percentage of claims worth more than £2.5m] is wrong, and we stand by that.'
Modelling done this week by the CLA shows that inheritance tax bills could wipe out farming profits for a decade.
A 200-acre farm with an expected annual profit of £27,300 would face a tax liability of £435,000 – if paid off over a decade, the farm would have to relinquish 159pc of its annual profit to HMRC.
Bradshaw adds that, perhaps, 20 years down the line, 'you could see a place where, potentially, the industry can be more dynamic'.
But the loss in the meantime is likely to be staggering.
'There is a real risk that this will be an absolute disaster for the owner-occupier, 200 to 800-acre farmer. Family farms will be sold if this pervades,' says Evans.
As for food security, he says, 'there will be consequences. What may happen is that bigger, leaner holdings will swallow up the family farms, and some heavily invested food producers may become more efficient. But there is no way that you can cast this as a good thing for the rural economy overall'.
'It is pretty demoralising,' Evans says. 'The implications of this Budget will put further brakes on what is already a struggling part of the economy. It's so sad when so many of us want to do more with it.'
Hashtags

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


Daily Record
43 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney yet, says polling guru
John Curtice said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's how it turned out. Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney as first minister just yet despite Labour's success at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, Professor John Curtice has said. The election guru said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's what happened. The Strathclyde University academic told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'If you take in the opinion polls, what's happened in Hamilton, and the ups and downs in Labour and SNP support since 2021, we see Labour at 31 per cent and the SNP at 31 per cent. 'So the contest always looked to be close and that's what's been proven in the end. Labour has done slightly better and the SNP slightly worse, but there is nothing in the result to suggest Labour has turned around the polls. 'But equally what's true is there are no signs in this result that the SNP are making much progress in reversing the losses from last year. 'The recent message from opinion polls are the SNP is running at just over 30 per cent, Labour is around 20 per cent, so it seems a reasonable expectation that such a result would not mean Anas Sarwar is Scotland's next first minister.' Curtice also said that the by-election was positive for Reform, even though it came third after some pundits predicted it could finish higher. Nigel Farage's party took 26.2 per cent of the vote - well above the 19 per cent it is sitting at in the national polls for Scotland. Writing in The Times, he said: 'Once again it is Reform's political prospects that now look brighter. 'As in the English local elections, so in Hamilton the party outperformed its current standing in the polls, winning as much as 26 per cent of the vote. 'Hitherto politicians in Scotland have comforted themselves with the thought that Nigel Farage could never make the political weather in a country that voted against Brexit and which seems less concerned about immigration. 'However, as in the rest of the UK, that is not a thought that is credible any more.' It is estimated around one in four Conservative voters in Scotland from last year's general election have switched to Reform, along with one in six Labour voters. Curtice said: 'Reform UK is damaging both of the principal unionist parties in Scotland. 'In this instance, it was not enough to save the SNP's bacon. But across Scotland there is still the likely prospect that the SNP will be the largest party in the next Holyrood election, but much diminished and much less powerful than the one currently occupying the debating chamber.'


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Lord Sainsbury: Give Glasgow greater devolved powers
"A major challenge which government faces if it wants to increase Scotland's rate of growth is a way to find and support such clusters," he said. "All the evidence from other countries suggests that the only way to effectively support clusters is to do so at a city region level. Read more: "I appreciate in Scotland, unlike in England, metro mayors have not yet been introduced, but if you want to support high-tech clusters, this is something I think you should seriously consider, with Greater Glasgow being given powers similar to those devolved to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands." Lord Sainsbury was speaking at the Creating the Jobs of Tomorrow conference organised by Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, where he was introduced to the stage by former Labour chancellor and prime minister Gordon Brown. Mr Brown said growth and productivity have been perennial problems in the UK and Scotland, with innovation the key to boosting performance. A new study by economist Dan Turner, head of research at the Centre for Progressive Policy, has suggested this could unlock the creation of hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs. "There are huge sources of innovation and inventiveness in Scotland, just as has been traditional in our history," he said. "The question is can we turn that into scalable companies that stay in Scotland, invest in Scotland, create jobs in Scotland, and Dan's study suggests we could create 300,000 jobs in the next 10 years. "That's 300,000 well-paying jobs, 120,000 in the new industries, the spin-offs in terms of the service sector another 180,000 - that is a possibility if we invest in the infrastructure, the skills, and the development necessary to achieve that." Lord David Sainsbury (Image: Nate Cleary) Lord Sainsbury is a Labour peer and served as minister for science and innovation under Mr Brown and his prime ministerial predecessor, Tony Blair, between 1998 and 2006. He was appointed a life peer in 1997. Lord Sainsbury said there are new opportunities for employment and growth in sectors such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence and biotechnology. "There are economists that will argue that it is investment that is the engine of economic growth, but we have to realise today that capital flows easily around the world, and it flows as it has always done, to where the best investment opportunities are created by innovation," Lord Sainsbury said. "You can sit in London today and you can invest in Silicon Valley, you can invest in practically any country - until recently you could even invest in Chinese venture capital - because that is what modern communication enables you to do. That is why investment is not the real driver of the economy, it's innovation." Among the other speakers was Michael Spence, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work in the analysis of markets with information imbalances. Read more: "There are two things that [people] associate with Adam Smith correctly," Mr Spence said. "One the 'invisible hand', which is the market system is a reasonably efficient tool for decentralising and allocating resources. "That actually is not the most important thing that Adam Smith said, but it's the one that neo-conservatives remember because they elevate market systems to the status of a religion, rather than a way of accomplishing economic and social goals. The most important one for our purposes is specialisation. "Adam Smith meant specialisation within an economy, when of course everything that David Sainsbury talked about in the global economy is just the Adam Smith insight writ large, and of course it is the ultimate source of growth. "Without specialisation you don't get scale of spread your activity over too much territory, and you don't get innovation. You get nothing if everybody has to do everything. "The fundamental message I want to deliver today is that's still true, and that growth is fundamentally about specialisation and structural change."


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
New risks emerge as America becomes less attractive
For decades, international investors have treated US government bonds as the safest place for their money. A long bull market in shares has been supported by American bonds and a sound US dollar. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, the underpinning of a 'safe haven' has helped stock markets to cope with other uncertainties. Now, investors are demanding much higher returns to lend money to the US government long-term. America is becoming less attractive to global investors at a time when its government needs them for finance more than ever. There is plenty to be nervous about. The US government is spending far more than it takes in, with the deficit up this year. Trump's spending and tax cut plans are likely to add to the US national debt over the next decade. And the US dollar has fallen to its lowest level in almost three years. US business confidence is weak, with the full impact of the supply turmoil yet to bite. Many manufacturers had stockpiled goods and components ahead of Trump's tariffs and import controls, but this buffer will soon be exhausted. May's stock market rally might seem reassuring on the surface. Major US technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia delivered strong earnings and drove most of the market gains. The biggest seven tech companies alone were responsible for more than half of the US stock market's rise in May. But these trading results do not yet reflect the full impact of the trade war and supply changes. Analysts expect slower earnings growth for these businesses over the next year. Trump still plans further action, and the tariffs to date will produce significant adverse effects; higher consumer prices, lower business investment and lower economic growth. Read more: Perhaps most worrying for investors is the inflation risk building up worldwide. As global tensions rise, governments will spend more on defence, with limited scope for tax increases. Business costs will also increase, as trade disputes continue to disrupt how goods move around the world. Global borrowing costs could force central banks to keep interest rates higher for longer. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that interest rate cuts are now more uncertain. There are signs that the tension between governments that want to spend more and nervous international lenders is also playing out in the UK, EU and Japan. British government bonds – gilts- are already seeing pressure as investors become more choosy about lending to governments anywhere. The OECD report this month warned that weak consumer confidence and fragile public finances leave the UK vulnerable to shocks. Appeasing lenders by cutting spending or raising taxes would hit economic growth. The end of US exceptionalism, linked to the declining role of the US dollar as a reserve currency, may be a gradual process as it was for the UK. There is still growth in many major US businesses and the US stock market is by far the most liquid globally. Shares have a record of coping better than bonds with rising inflation and there is value is stock markets outside the US. But we may be seeing the end of an era when investors could pay less attention to currency movements. And, although government bonds have a role in diversifying portfolios along with a spread of investments internationally, it is harder now to escape geopolitical risks. The recent stock market rebound may give opportunity to rebalance portfolios. Colin McLean is a director of Barnton Capital