Delay inheritance tax changes until 2027, ministers urged
The UK government has been urged to delay announcing its final agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) reforms until October 2026, to come into effect in April 2027.
A report by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has said that a pause in the implementation of these reforms 'would allow for better formulation of tax policy and provide the government with an opportunity to convey a positive long-term vision for farming.'
It would also protect vulnerable farmers who would have 'more time to seek appropriate professional advice," they said.
MPs praised the government's commitments to backing British produce and supporting farmers, but are concerned that 'high-profile policies have been announced prior to the completion and publication of the strategies and reviews that Defra says will inform and guide its vision.'
They have raised concerns that changes announced in the autumn budget last year were made without adequate consultation, impact assessment or affordability assessment. This means that the impact of the changes 'on family farms, land values, tenant farmers, food security and farmers in the devolved administrations' is 'disputed and unclear' with a risk of producing unintended consequences.
The report added that the reforms threaten to affect the most vulnerable and that the government should consider alternative measures.
Read more: UK economy grows 0.7% in first quarter of the year
It comes as a new survey of UK farmers that found that before the budget 70% felt optimistic about the future of their rural businesses, but that number fell to 12% after the chancellor's statement.
Meanwhile, 84% of farmers felt that their mental health has been affected, with farmers citing the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) closure and changes to inheritance tax reliefs as the common areas creating concern.
The committee supports the government's aim of reforming APR and BPR to close the loophole which allows wealthy investors to buy agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax, but notes that stakeholders and experts have proposed several alternative ways to reform these taxes so as to achieve this objective without harming small family farms, and asks the government to consult on these proposals before publishing its Finance Bill in 2026.
The EFRA committee is calling on the government to publish its evaluation of and rationale for following or not following alternative policy measures presented by stakeholders such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Farmers Union (NFU).
It also warned that the sudden closing of the SFI 'affected trust in the government' and 'left many farmers without the funding they expected and at risk of becoming unviable in the period before the next scheme is introduced'.
The government has since announced it will allow SFI applications that were in progress within two months of 11 March to progress with restrictions.
The committee is also urging for an alternative funding mechanism to be put in place no later than September 2025, to fill the gap in funding for those who missed out on the SFI 2024.
MPs said the government should set out, in their response to this report, what the next iteration of SFI will look like and the date it will be open for applications.
In January, Defra announced its plans to publish a 25-year Farming Roadmap. MPs say that in this, 'the government should urgently set out its vision for the farming sector, achieving food security and the future of the Farming and Countryside Programme.'
The report says: 'The 25-year Farming Roadmap should bring together Defra farming policy and programmes into a single vision outlining how they will work together to achieve measurable outcomes for food security and the environment.'
Alistair Carmichael MP and chair of the EFRA committee, said: 'The Committee has taken its work extremely seriously in developing this report and in agreeing our findings. There is an opportunity here to rebuild trust and confidence in the farming sector and I hope that the government will take our recommendations seriously.
Read more: Eurozone economic growth weaker than expected amid Trump's tariff turmoil
'The way in which the government has behaved over recent months has clearly negatively affected the confidence and wellbeing of farmers. Changes to APR and BPR in the autumn budget, the sudden closure of the Capital Grants scheme in November 2024, and the abrupt ending of SFI applications in March have all led farmers to feel that they cannot rely on the government to live up to its commitments.
"The government, however, seems to be dismissing farmers' concerns and ignoring the strength of feeling evidenced in the months of protests that saw tractors converge on Westminster and up and down the country.
'We have seen that Defra's communications with farmers have been poor, with confusing and sometimes contradictory messaging. There has been a lack of adequate consultation. Policies affecting farmers have been announced without due consideration or explanation of their impact or their rationale.
'Farmers ought to be the essential element in the government's plans both to achieve food security and to restore and protect the environment. When they make decisions for their businesses, farmers have to plan for the long term — but the landscape they are operating in currently is unclear.
Farmers urgently need clarity, certainty and advance notice of changes — they cannot be expected to rethink their businesses on a whim. It is essential that Defra focuses on rebuilding trust through good-faith communications with the sector.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy
Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel's war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday. While the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line,' the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself. Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world. United Nations U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' United Kingdom British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to return to the negotiating table to diplomatically end the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Russia Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' Iraq The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Saudi Arabia had earlier condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. Qatar Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Hamas and the Houthis Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes. In a statement on Sunday, the Houthi political bureau called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanon Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan Pakistan blasted the U.S. strikes as a 'deeply disturbing' escalation just days after it nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic intervention with the India-Pakistan crisis. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law,' the government said in a statement. 'Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the U.N. Charter.' China China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. European Union The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Italy Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities 'represented a danger for the entire area' but hoped the action could lead to de-escalation in the conflict and negotiations. European Council President Antonio Costa said he was 'deeply alarmed' by the bombings and called on all parties to 'show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.' 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' Costa added. 'The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.' Netherlands Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government's national security council would meet later to discuss the issue. He said said the U.S. attacks amounted to 'a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.' Japan Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment. The Vatican Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.' Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to 'stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.'
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy
Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel's war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday. US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with IranWhile the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line,' the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself. Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to return to the negotiating table to diplomatically end the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. Saudi Arabia expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Saudi Arabia had earlier condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes. In a statement on Sunday, the Houthi political bureau called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan blasted the U.S. strikes as a 'deeply disturbing' escalation just days after it nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic intervention with the India-Pakistan crisis. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law,' the government said in a statement. 'Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the U.N. Charter.' China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities 'represented a danger for the entire area' but hoped the action could lead to de-escalation in the conflict and negotiations. President Antonio Costa said he was 'deeply alarmed' by the bombings and called on all parties to 'show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.' 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' Costa added. 'The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.' Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government's national security council would meet later to discuss the issue. He said said the U.S. attacks amounted to 'a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment. Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.' Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to 'stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
