Farmers are feeling “betrayed” about changes to inheritance tax, the farming union chief said, but made clear that he does not condone halting supplies of food to supermarkets in protest.
A row has erupted over the new taxes for farms worth more than £1 million, exacerbated by uncertainty about Treasury figures the Budget move is based on.
A Cabinet minister insisted the measures were “fair and proportionate” and would not be drawn on why the Prime Minister did not speak to farmers as they staged a protest outside the Welsh Labour conference.
“I think the industry is feeling betrayed, feeling angry,” National Farmers’ Union President Tom Bradshaw said.
He told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We have a Government saying food security is a critical part of national security, yet they’ve ripped the rug out from that very industry which is going to invest in food security for the future.”
However, he said he did not “for one moment condone” withholding food from supermarkets in protest.
“That is not an NFU tactic, we do not support emptying supermarket shelves, but I do completely understand the strength of feeling that there is amongst farmers, they feel helpless today, and they’re trying to think of what can they do to try and demonstrate what this means to them.
“So look, I understand their strength of feeling, but we are not supporting that action.”
Treasury data shows that around three-quarters of farmers will pay nothing in inheritance tax as a result of the controversial changes announced in the Budget last month.
However, farmers have challenged the figures, pointing instead to data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which suggests 66% of farm businesses are worth more than the £1 million threshold at which inheritance tax will now need to be paid.
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh side-stepped questions about why Sir Keir Starmer did not speak to protesting farmers on Saturday and whether it was wise for a farming minister to say farmers should calm down over plans to raise inheritance tax plans.
“We do recognise the difficult situation that many are in, but we think the choices that we set out in the Budget are fair and proportionate,” she told Trevor Philips.
Asked about contingency plans for food security if farmers strike, she said: “The Department for Environment and Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and… setting out contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the rise in inheritance tax is a “war on farmers” that will “undermine our food security”.
Farmers are often “struggling to make ends meet”, he said.
“So the fact that Labour has declared war on farmers is obviously bad for farmers, but it’s actually bad for all of us, because it’ll undermine our food security.”
Ms Haigh also said cheaper bus fares could be targeted to young people in future rather than extending the £3 cap beyond the end of 2025.
“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.
“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses,” she said.
The Budget set aside £150 million for the £3 bus fare cap, which will rise from £2 from January.
An inflationary limit will stop fares automatically being increased to £3.
Ms Haigh has also confirmed where Budget money to improve bus travel nationwide will go, with £712 million for local authorities to improve services, alongside a further £243 million for bus operators.
Peterborough, the Isle of Wright, Torbay, Cambridgeshire, Leicester and Torbay are among the areas that will get “unprecedented” funding levels.
Combined authorities representing South Yorkshire and the Liverpool City region will receive £17 million and nearly £21 million respectively.
A reformed allocation model has been based on need – for example an area’s levels of deprivation and population – instead of making areas compete for funding as in previous years.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel