Inheritance tax: Welsh farming unions disappointed by talks
Welsh farming unions say they are "very disappointed", following a meeting in which they say the UK government showed "no movement" on planned changes to inheritance tax rules for farms.The National Farmers' Union (NFU) Cymru and the Farmers' Union of Wales (FUW) met Treasury minister James Murray in Whitehall on Tuesday.Last October, the UK government announced it would charge a 20% inheritance tax on agricultural assets worth more than £1m for the first time, although the threshold for some farmers to pay would be £3m.The UK government previously said it was a "fair and balanced" approach that would help to fix public services and only effect the "wealthiest of farmers".
NFU Cymru President Aled Jones told BBC Wales he was "very disappointed" with the outcome of the meeting."We went in with an expectation of being able to offer and seek a solution to this issue that we are facing, the huge crisis that the industry is facing. "We had a costed solution, an alternative which would have offered Treasury an alternative way without devastating the impact on family farms across the country.""They were not happy or even prepared even to open and consider alternatives."Mr Jones said his union would "persevere" on the issue."We have our members across the country, we have all the family farms who are waiting upon us to drive for a better solution to this issue, and we will continue whatever we do."
'War on countryside'
FUW President Ian Rickman said: "We put all those arguments about the stress and strain this is putting on farmers... this is putting on Welsh farmers.""But there was no sign of any movement, and no willingness to carry on a dialogue going forward, and perhaps find a way out of this".Welsh Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick accused Labour of waging an "ideological war on the countryside".The Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe MP added: "Their family farm tax could be the final nail in the coffin for many communities struggling to cope. "It will worsen rural depopulation and damage the Welsh language, in addition to the serious impact on the economy.The UK government has been asked to respond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
4 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
Finextra
4 hours ago
- Finextra
Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien
The arrival of formal regulation for Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products is no longer a question of if, but when. With the Treasury's May 2025 consultation response, the direction is this: by mid-2026, third-party BNPL lenders will fall within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This change brings with it a full set of regulatory requirements—covering affordability, creditworthiness, redress, disclosures, and governance. While many firms are familiar with the general framework, the pace and detail of implementation demand serious attention. Risk leaders now face a critical window to build a strategy that aligns commercial goals with regulatory readiness. Scope of the new BNPL regime From mid-2026, third-party BNPL providers must be authorised by the FCA and comply with its rules on affordability, creditworthiness, consumer duty, complaints, disclosures, and more: Mandatory, proportionate affordability and creditworthiness checks Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. Tailored disclosure requirements for digital-first products The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. Extension of Section 75 protections to BNPL agreements Providers will be jointly liable for qualifying claims, requiring clear merchant oversight, governance controls, and capital planning to manage new exposure. While third-party BNPL is the initial focus, merchant-offered BNPL products remain outside the perimeter for now. This exemption, based on Article 60F(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, is under review and could be revisited if scale or harm increases. What this means for compliance and risk leaders The FCA isn't looking for surface-level compliance. It expects firms to demonstrate that processes are working and that consumers are genuinely protected. Affordability frameworks must evolve Checks must be proportionate and verifiable, with models recalibrated to reflect customer circumstances. Even low-value lending must evidence the potential for harm reduction. Complaint handling will need to be FOS-ready This includes robust audit trails, clear redress pathways, MI reporting on themes, and training on FOS processes. Joint liability introduces new exposure Providers must enhance governance around merchant partnerships, define liability clearly in contracts, and plan for potential claims in their capital models. Joined-up governance is essential Effective programmes will require close collaboration across credit, compliance, legal, product, and ops teams—with clear ownership under SM&CR. Disclosures must reflect real-world understanding It's not just about format. The FCA expects firms to test, monitor, and evidence comprehension—particularly for vulnerable customers. Making best use of the Temporary Permissions Regime The FCA will launch a Temporary Permissions Regime (TPR) to support the transition. Providers must be ready to act quickly when the window opens. Prepare for registration Ensure that internal records, model documentation, and business models are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations. Conduct a readiness assessment Review decisioning processes, affordability checks, complaints management, and financial crime controls. Plan for dual-track execution Meet TPR requirements while simultaneously building toward full authorisation. Engage early with the FCA Establish open communication lines to reduce ambiguity and show proactivity. Plan for contingencies Prepare wind-down plans, customer messaging, and backup procedures in case of registration delays or rejections. Innovation and consumer protection can coexist The decision to exclude some legacy Consumer Credit Act requirements reflects the unique nature of BNPL: short-term, interest-free, and often accessed via digital channels. This creates space for a more relevant, user-centric approach to disclosures but it also raises the bar. Risk and compliance teams should work with product, legal, and design leads to ensure communications are: Integrated into real customer journeys Mobile-friendly and accessible Prompted by user behaviour Supported by outcome-based testing and complaints data Those who treat disclosures as a compliance task may struggle. Those who invest in relevance and usability will have stronger customer engagement and defensibility. Merchant carve-out and the risk of market distortion The decision to exclude merchant-led BNPL from the regulatory scope has sparked debate. Without oversight, merchant-offered credit could create competitive asymmetry and raise consumer protection concerns. Risk leaders should: Monitor merchant product developments and prepare for potential perimeter expansion Review all third-party merchant partnerships for regulatory dependencies Revisit financial promotions and credit broking arrangements, particularly where merchants promote BNPL products without broking permissions Regulatory costs and anticipated market impact The Treasury's impact assessment estimates: An Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of £2.3 million A Net Present Value of -£20.1 million over the assessment period over the assessment period Authorisation application fees: £5,000 to £25,000 Annual supervision fees: £10,000 to £50,000 Technology upgrades: £500,000 to £2 million per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints Section 75 exposure: Estimated at 0.5% to 1.2% of transaction values With the UK's BNPL market valued at £20 billion annually, sector-wide exposure to Section 75 alone could exceed £100 million. Consolidation is expected. Government modelling suggests 20–30% of providers may exit the market post-regulation. But with global BNPL volumes growing rapidly, those who remain stand to benefit from a stronger, more trusted marketplace. How leading firms are responding Some providers have already started adjusting: Klarna Following regulatory scrutiny in Sweden, Klarna UK introduced income verification, real-time spend tracking, and risk-based onboarding. Monzo Flex Built affordability into product design from the outset, with integrated credit reporting and real-time tracking. PayPal Adopted a cross-functional compliance strategy with specialist teams, training, and documentation of governance processes. The clock is ticking and the gap between those who prepare and those who delay will widen fast. For risk leaders, this is a chance to go beyond baseline compliance, strengthening frameworks, improving customer outcomes, and shaping the future of BNPL in a regulated environment.
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
'Nowhere near enough' secondary teachers being recruited
Hayden Llewellyn, the Education Workforce Council (EWC) chief executive, gave evidence to the Senedd education committee's inquiry on recruitment and retention on June 5 Mr Llewellyn identified a clear pattern in initial teacher education, with recruitment problems centred on secondaries and 'no problem' in primary schools. The head of the workforce regulator said the Welsh Government aims for about 600 primary teachers to be trained each year, with that number overdelivered in August 2024. But he warned of a stark picture for secondaries, saying ministers are seeking to train about 1,000 teachers each year but the EWC issued 369 certificates, according to the latest data. 'About a third of the number of secondary teachers that Wales is looking for were managing to train,' he said, adding that a further 34 trained through an Open University route. Mr Llewellyn stated the trend for secondary schools has gotten worse over the past ten to 20 years, with improvements during the pandemic 'dropping back significantly'. He told Senedd members: 'I'm sorry to say, having tracked recruitment and retention for many years – I can't really see secondary improving.' He explained recruitment in some subjects – such as PE, history and geography – is fine but maths, English, sciences, Welsh and modern foreign languages are particularly low. Mr Llewellyn raised the example of 27 maths teachers being turned out in August, with Wales looking for nearer 130. 'It's the lowest I've ever seen over the years,' he said, adding that Wales wanted 80 to 90 Welsh teachers but only 20 completed training in 2024. He pointed to EWC data showing 75 per cent of those teaching maths are trained in the subject and, speaking more generally, he said the number is lower still for sciences. He warned: 'Given the picture with recruitment, we could see that picture deteriorating.' Mr Llewellyn raised the example set by Scotland where teachers' registration is linked to a specific subject or phase. 'You cannot teach a subject you're not trained in,' he said.
