Farmers could be forced to sell land at lower value under new Labour plans
Farmers could be forced to sell fields for less than their potential value under measures included in the government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, a move which risks deepening the rift between the government and rural communities.
The legislation would give councils greater powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase orders, allowing them to pay only the current value of land, rather than what it could be worth if it was developed – as is the case in the current system.
This could result in farmers and other landowners being forced to sell off their land at a much lower value than they would expect under current rules, if the land is identified as being necessary for new homes, hospitals or schools.
It comes amid growing anger from farming communities after the government extended inheritance tax to cover agricultural properties at last year's budget, with thousands of farmers warning they will have to sell off family owned farms to afford the tax.
Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, warned that the latest proposals are 'a step too far' in light of the mounting challenge on farmers posed by inheritance tax changes.
'We have been supportive of many of the government's changes to planning policy, but giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of such a challenging outlook for farmers and the inheritance tax fiasco', he told The Telegraph.
'This is not about people blocking development, it's about the state paying the market price for land. We need more houses and more economic development, but not at the cost of basic principles.'
The government has been accused of betraying farmers after Rachel Reeves' controversial changes to inheritance tax which have led to a revolt in countryside communities.
Under the changes, farms valued at £1m or more will be subject to 20 per cent inheritance tax. The Treasury claims that with tax allowances taken into consideration, only farms worth £3m will be affected, amounting to just 28 per cent of family farms.
But figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appear to suggest that as many as 66 per cent could be hit.
The government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill will include wide-ranging reforms, including streamlining the planning process, changing the way developers meet environmental obligations, and giving communities near new electricity pylons money off their energy bills.
Along with recent changes to national planning policy, Labour hopes the legislation will help deliver on its promise to build 1.5 million homes and make decisions on 150 major infrastructure projects by the next election.
Deputy prime minister and housing secretary Angela Rayner said the government would create 'the biggest building boom in a generation' by 'lifting the bureaucratic burden which has been holding back developments for too long'.
Other changes include a new nature restoration fund, allowing developers to pay into larger environmental projects instead of funding their own site-by-site initiatives, which the Government hopes will avoid a repeat of the £100 million 'bat tunnel' HS2 was required to build.
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
31 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
DWP confirm exact date people born by to get 2025 winter fuel payment
The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that all individuals born before a specific date will be eligible for the winter fuel payment this year. The website has been updated with preliminary details following Chancellor Rachel Reeves' announcement earlier this week that nine million people who lost the £200-300 benefit last winter will receive it this year. Those earning over £35,000 will also receive the payment, but it will subsequently be reclaimed through the tax system. Sir Keir Starmer has maintained that the decision to restore most winter fuel payments was not a reaction to political backlash against the policy. Following the announcement, the DWP has updated its information and for the first time revealed who will be eligible for the payment. DWP officials stated that only those born before a certain date would receive the money. They said: "The Winter Fuel Payment for 2025 to 2026 will be made to everyone in England and Wales born before 22 September 1959, unless you choose not to get it. You could get either £200 or £300 to help you pay your heating bills for winter. "You do not need to do anything - payments will be made automatically.", reports Teesside Live. Officials confirmed that everyone will receive the money, but cautioned those earning above a certain threshold that it would be recouped through HMRC, although they did not provide specifics on how this would occur. The statement read: " If your income is over £35,000, your Winter Fuel Payment will be recovered later through HMRC. Details of the 2025 to 2026 payment will be available by the end of June 2025." This week, warnings were issued that the 'fiscal drag' caused by the £35,000 earnings limit will result in hundreds of thousands of individuals losing their winter fuel payment during this parliament. This is due to Ms Reeves confirming that the £35,000 limit will not increase with inflation, leading to an estimated additional 500,000 people being affected before the end of this parliament. BBC Moneybox expert Paul Lewis stated: "The £35,000 income limit for keeping the winter fuel payment will be frozen Ministers confirm, leading to more pensioners repaying the money year by year it will join frozen bereavement payments, capital limits, child benefit limits, and tax thresholds." The Prime Minister highlighted recent growth figures and decreasing interest rates as evidence that "the economy has stabilised". Ms Reeves admitted that working individuals were not experiencing signs of progress as she attempted to move past the winter fuel controversy by asserting her spending review tomorrow would stimulate growth. "This government is going for growth because that is the best way to create jobs, boost wages, lift people out of poverty and sustainably fund our schools and our hospitals and all the public services we rely on," she addressed the GMB Union Congress conference. While expressing confidence in the government's direction, Ms Reeves commented: "I know that not enough working people are yet feeling that progress, and that's what tomorrow's spending review is all about - making working people better off, investing in our security, investing in our health, investing in our economy." Today, Rachel Reeves did not dismiss the possibility of further tax increases come autumn, following reports that the economy contracted more than anticipated in April. The Chancellor has consistently maintained that the forthcoming spending review's costs are offset by last year's tax hikes, emphasising that departments must now "live within their means". However, with a faltering economy and new obligations such as partially reversing cuts to winter fuel payments, experts caution that taxes might rise again in the autumn. When questioned on LBC about ruling out additional tax hikes, Ms Reeves said: "I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours." Yet, she reiterated her commitment to avoiding tax increases on the scale seen last year, when they rose by £40 billion.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
The £13 bn hole in the government's 2.6% defence target
The Chancellor's and the Treasury's assertion, in its latest Spending Review, that by 2027 defence spending will 'reach 2.6% of GDP' is not all it seems, to the tune of about £13 billion. Here's why. The published forecasts for defence spending in the financial years 2026/7 and 2027/8, of £65.5 billion and £71 billion respectively in cash terms, are 2.1% and 2.2% of the OBR's forecast of 'current prices' GDP in those years. This is a long way short of the pledged 2.6%. The gap in cash terms is £13 billion - which is NOT a rounding error. I should start by saying that 24 hours ago I asked Treasury officials to explain the gap. It can't be hard for them to do so. They've gone away to think about it. So here are a few of my thoughts about what is going on. Some of you may remember that the government is including 'Nato qualifying' spending on intelligence in its calculation of that 2.6% target. From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below... But defence-related intelligence cannot possibly be more than a fifth of all UK spending on Mi6, Mi5 and GCHQ, because Nato is very clear that the only intelligence spending that counts has to be directly related to military operations. I am going to be generous and assume spending on military intelligence that is part of the so-called Single Intelligence Account and outside of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budget is just over a billion pounds. Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, tells me this is absurdly high. But I am trying to give the Treasury the benefit of the doubt. Even with my generosity there is a £12 billion gap. And by the way, even if every single penny of intelligence spending was attributed to defence, there would be a £7 billion gap! One Treasury official said another £1.6 billion is probably the £1.6 billion annual cash cost of army pensions. I'll lop that off the £13 billion. Which leaves only £10 billion to find. Wallace told me that when Osborne was chancellor, he insisted that in submissions of the UK's defence spending to Nato the MoD had to include the VAT it pays on procurement. As Wallace says this is double counting, because the VAT is paid to the Treasury. When defence secretary, he was so infuriated that one year he refused to submit numbers to Nato. So perhaps the whole of the £10 billion gap is VAT. And maybe the reason the Treasury isn't getting back to me to confirm or deny is that it knows neither Nato or President Trump would be impressed that a huge proportion of our claimed defence spending may be around £10 billion in tax payments to... the British government. Anyway, now that I've put these numbers in the public domain, I await with interest clarification from the Treasury of what's going on here. None of what I've just said takes away from the published fact that defence spending is rising 3.8% faster than inflation for the next three years. That is a huge amount of resource being transferred to defence. But if when you read that the UK is set to spend 2.6% of GDP on defence, you thought all of that significant expenditure was on the armed forces, munitions, military satellites, nukes, planes and boats - as I did - you need to think again.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
How Labour's winter fuel fiasco paves the way for means-testing the state pension
As Rachel Reeves announced an about-turn on her winter fuel policy this week, she opened a whole new can of worms for pensioners. The Chancellor's decision to return the payments to those with an income of under £35,000 has created a complicated means-test and reignited calls from some commentators to claw back other benefits, such as the state pension, from those deemed 'wealthy'. Means-testing the state pension system would be a radical move that no British chancellor has dared attempt before. But Labour is desperate for cash and has shown it is not afraid to anger older voters. Could Ms Reeves possibly get away with it? Introduced in 1909 and originally worth five shillings a week, the state pension is a cornerstone of the welfare state. Today, workers pay National Insurance contributions for 35 years to receive its full benefit. The full new state pension is £230.25 a week, while the old 'basic' pension – for those who reached state pension age before April 2016 – is £176.45 a week. However, the benefit has become increasingly unaffordable to administer. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts the country's spending on pensioners will reach £180bn by 2029. The idea of reserving the payment for those who need it most has therefore become increasingly attractive. Both Labour and the Tories pledged to keep the 'triple lock' that means pensions are increased each April by the highest of wage growth, inflation or 2.5pc. Means-testing could be one way to dramatically cut costs, without breaking that pledge. In January, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, caused uproar when she said her party would 'look at means-testing' the state pension. Key Labour advisers, think tanks and academics have also voiced support for the plan. Means-testing would completely upend the system. But this week's winter fuel policy reversal could make it slightly easier. Under the latest changes, all pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300 a year. However, those who earn more than £35,000 will be expected to return it to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). To administer the new system, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will tell HMRC who they've paid the winter fuel payment to. HMRC will then apply the income test to determine who will need to repay the money. Government departments have long shared data about taxpayers, including doing so specifically to pay or not pay a pensioner benefit, such as free TV licences. But is this Whitehall bureaucracy really a slow slide towards a means-tested state pension? Telegraph Money reader Jim Humphrey fears so. The 69-year-old, a part-time financial adviser from St Albans, is one of the estimated two million pensioners who will still not receive the winter fuel payment. This is because his income exceeds the £35,000 threshold. He is worried Labour is on a 'slippery slope' to means-testing the state pension. He said: 'I don't need the money, but it is a question of principle... I have paid tax for many, many years.' Other state benefits have been means-tested in recent years. Free TV licences for all over-75s were scrapped in August 2020 and restricted to those who qualify for pension credit. Last year's restriction of the winter fuel payment to those on pension credit was also a form of means-testing – as is the payment of pension credit to those on the lowest incomes. Campaigners and economists have also pushed for free prescriptions for the over-60s to be similarly restricted. Last October, Dr Kristian Niemietz, of the Institute for Economic Affairs think tank, said: 'Means-testing old-age benefits is a way to make fiscal savings while insulating the poorest from cuts.' Labour is also gearing up to ban over-60s from taking student loans from 2027, as it introduces a 'Lifetime Learning Entitlement'. Ben Ramanauskas, of think tank Policy Exchange, said: 'The Government's approach to cutting spending through means-testing is the right one. 'However, this alone will not significantly lower the cost of the UK's unsustainable welfare bill, improve public finances, or give younger taxpayers a fair deal.' Other countries already operate means-testing on their state pension payouts. In Canada, which operates a flat-rate benefit system, a maximum of $1,433 (£773.30) is paid each month, and is topped up for those on low incomes. In Chile, a pension is paid to those over 65, unless your family's wealth is deemed to be in the top 10pc of the population. Those with an income of less than $1,210,828 (£955.30) a month are eligible, whether they are still working or not. In Australia, the state pension – or 'age pension' – has no reference to how long a person has worked. Instead, it is granted as an age-based means-tested benefit. About a third of pensioners have their pension cut because they have other sources of income. Moving to an Australian-style system would be highly controversial, angering those who say if you have 'paid in' you should get the full amount irrespective of your income. Mike Ambery, of pension provider Standard Life, said: 'There would need to be a change in applying for state pension as well as the detail to replicate means-testing in other countries. The practicality and change to a universal system now would be operationally significant.' There would be other barriers to overcome. The Government could only make significant savings if people are able to generate big enough private pension savings. But despite the 'automatic enrolment' reforms that made workplace pensions compulsory, millions of people are on course for meagre retirement incomes. Research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) found that the cost of all but the most basic retirement has increased over the past year. Two retirees running one small car, eating out weekly and taking a four-star foreign holiday each year would now need an income of almost £35,000 each before tax to retire comfortably, rising to £52,000 if they live alone. Meanwhile, anyone living alone on the state pension would even fall short of a basic retirement, which now requires an income of £13,400 a year, the PLSA said.
