Rachel Reeves’ changes to agricultural inheritance tax could lead to food price rises and will have a “catastrophic” impact on family farms, farmers have warned.
Her announcement has been met with anger from rural communities, with celebrities such as Jeremy Clarkson saying farmers “have been shafted”, and Kirstie Allsopp saying the chancellor has “destroyed the ability [for farmers] to pass farms on to their children”.
Farmers and the Conservative shadow farming minister have told Sky News the plan, which is due to begin in April 2026, risks pushing up food prices due to uncertainty and the possibility of farms having to be sold up so less food is produced.
National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Tom Bradshaw said the policy “will snatch away” the next generation’s ability to produce British food.
Fourth generation Warwickshire farmer Bizza Walters, 26, told Sky News she would be forced to sell some of her family farm’s 500 acres to pay the £7,500 a month she has estimated she would have to pay for 10 years if her father and uncles, who own the farm, died.
More on Farming
Related Topics:
“Our margins and costs are so tight and anything we make is reinvested, so I’d have to sell land which would not go back into food production,” she said.
“They’re going to have to come to their senses because food prices will go up because we won’t be able to produce as much food.”
Advertisement
Image: Jeremy Clarkson, whose TV show has opened up the struggles of farming to millions, said farmers have ‘been shafted’. Pic: PA
Country Land and Business Association (CLA) president Victoria Vyvyan told Sky News the government has “conflated a business asset with personal wealth” in their bid to tax the wealthy.
But she said farms are businesses and most run on tight margins with little spare cash.
She added a £1m farm would only be about 100 acres in most UK areas, “which is not a viable business proposition”.
The £1m cap could also rack up quite quickly as it is not just the value of land, but also livestock, farmhouses, sheds and machinery.
Image: Most farms are run on small margins. Pic: Sky News
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore, who is from a farming background, said the move is “catastrophic for family farms”.
“This is effectively thievery, putting two fingers up to the farming industry,” he told Sky News as he accused the government of failing to understand how farming works.
“They’ve completely underestimated the effect this will have, it creates a lot of uncertainty in terms of how that land will be managed.
“If you want to invest in that holding to produce food, you need certainty, and what the announcement creates is uncertainty.
“It will have a direct impact on the food security agenda and food prices further down the line.
“If you’re wanting to work hard to hand farmland down to the next generation, you’re completely disincentivised to do that.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
Are politicians listening to young farmers?
He reiterated what lots of farmers have been saying: that their land may be high in value, but they are struggling with cashflows, so paying tax to continue the family business may not be viable for many.
NFU president Mr Bradshaw added: “This budget not only threatens family farms but will also make producing food more expensive.
“This means more cost for farmers who simply cannot absorb it, and it will have to be borne by someone.
“Farmers are down to the bone and gristle, who is going to carry these costs?”
The government says it is still committed to supporting farmers and “the vital role they play to feed our nation”.
Speaking on Thursday, the chancellor described the changes as “fair and proportionate”.
“We needed to raise money in the budget yesterday, and we know that there are a lot of landowners who are very wealthy, some who buy land to avoid paying inheritance tax because previously there was no inheritance tax,” she said.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been contacted for comment.
Upbit operator Dunamu reported a surge in profitability for the third quarter of the year, posting 239 billion won ($165 million) in net income.
The figure marks an increase of more than 300% compared to the same period last year, which stood at $40 million, local news outlet Chosun Biz reported, citing regulatory filings with the Financial Supervisory Service.
The filing reportedly showed strong momentum across all key metrics. Consolidated revenue climbed to $266 million, up 35% from the previous quarter, while operating profit rose 54% to $162 million. Net income also jumped 145% quarter-over-quarter from $67 million.
The company attributed its improved performance to rising trading activity as global digital asset markets rebounded through 2024 and 2025.
Dunamu said investor confidence received a boost following regulatory developments in the United States, including the passage of the Genius Act, the Clarity Act and the Anti-CBDC Bill. These measures, the company said, contributed to renewed institutional participation and steadier market conditions.
Dunamu has faced heightened reporting requirements since 2022, when it was added to the list of corporations subject to external audit due to having more than 500 shareholders.
Notably, several major crypto firms experienced a revenue increase last quarter. Bitcoin mining company TeraWulf and Singapore-based cloud Bitcoin miner BitFuFu doubled their third-quarter revenue from the previous year.
As Cointelegraph reported, Naver Financial, the fintech arm of South Korea’s largest internet company, is preparing to acquire Dunamu. Naver reportedly plans to bring Dunamu in as a subsidiary through a share swap, with board approvals expected soon.
Upbit Korea is the largest crypto exchange in South Korea in terms of trading volume and customer base, according to CoinMarketCap.
Many Labour MPs have been left shellshocked after the chaotic political self-sabotage of the past week.
Bafflement, anger, disappointment, and sheer frustration are all on relatively open display at the circular firing squad which seems to have surrounded the prime minister.
The botched effort to flush out backroom plotters and force Wes Streeting to declare his loyalty ahead of the budget has instead led even previously loyal Starmerites to predict the PM could be forced out of office before the local elections in May.
“We have so many councillors coming up for election across the country,” one says, “and at the moment it looks like they’re going to be wiped out. That’s our base – we just can’t afford to lose them. I like Keir [Starmer] but there’s only a limited window left to turn things around. There’s a real question of urgency.”
Another criticised a “boys club” at No 10 who they claimed have “undermined” the prime minister and “forgotten they’re meant to be serving the British people.”
There’s clearly widespread muttering about what to do next – and even a degree of enviousness at the lack of a regicidal 1922 committee mechanism, as enjoyed by the Tories.
“Leadership speculation is destabilising,” one said. “But there’s really no obvious strategy. Andy Burnham isn’t even an MP. You’d need a stalking horse candidate and we don’t have one. There’s no 1922. It’s very messy.”
More on Labour
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Starmer’s faithfuls are ‘losing faith’
Others are gunning for the chancellor after months of careful pitch-rolling for manifesto-breaching tax rises in the budget were ripped up overnight.
“Her career is toast,” one told me. “Rachel has just lost all credibility. She screwed up on the manifesto. She screwed up on the last two fiscal events, costing the party huge amounts of support and leaving the economy stagnating.
“Having now walked everyone up the mountain of tax rises and made us vote to support them on the opposition day debate two days ago, she’s now worried her job is at risk and has bottled it.
“Talk to any major business or investor and they are holding off investing in the UK until it is clear what the UK’s tax policy is going to be, putting us in a situation where the chancellor is going to have to go through this all over again in six months – which just means no real economic growth for another six months.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
After less than 18 months in office, the government is stuck in a political morass largely of its own making.
Treasury sources have belatedly argued that the chancellor’s pre-budget change of heart on income tax is down to better-than-expected economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
That should be a cause of celebration. The question is whether she and the PM are now too damaged to make that case to the country – and rescue their benighted prospects.
People granted asylum in the UK will only be allowed to stay in the country temporarily, in sweeping reforms expected to be announced on Monday.
Modelled on the Danish system, the aim is to make the UK less attractive for illegal immigrants and make it easier to deport them.
Planned changes mean that refugee status will become temporary and subject to regular review, with refugees removed as soon as their home countries are deemed safe.
Under current UK rules, those granted refugee status have it for five years and can then apply for indefinite leave to remain and get on a route to citizenship.
In a social media video trailing her announcement, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: “We will always be a country that gives sanctuary to people who are fleeing danger, but we must restore order and control.”
She called it “the most significant changes to our asylum system in modern times”.
An ally of the home secretary said: “Today, becoming a refugee equals a lifetime of protection in Britain.
More on Denmark
Related Topics:
“Mahmood will change that, making refugee status temporary and subject to regular review. The moment your home country is safe to return to, you will be removed.
“While this might seem like a small technical shift, this new settlement marks the most significant shift in the treatment of refugees since the Second World War.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:15
UK looks to Denmark for tougher immigration policy
Time and money ‘wasted’ on Rwanda scheme
While the number of asylum claims across Europe has fallen, numbers in Britain have risen.
Ms Mahmood said the previous government had had “years to tackle this problem” but had “wasted” time and money on the £700m Rwanda scheme.
Some 39,075 people have arrived in the UK after making the journey across the Channel so far this year, according to the latest Home Office figures.
That is an increase of 19% on the same point in 2024 and up 43% on 2023, but remains 5% lower than at the equivalent point in 2022, which remains the peak year for crossings.
Other changes expected to be announced on Monday include requiring judges to prioritise public safety over migrants’ rights to a family life, or the risk that they will face “inhuman” treatment if returned to their home country, the Telegraph has reported.
Denmark’s tighter rules on family reunions are also being looked at.
Denmark has adopted increasingly restrictive rules in order to deal with migration over the last few years.
In Denmark, most asylum or refugee statuses are temporary. Residency can be revoked once a country is deemed safe.
In order to achieve settlement, asylum seekers are required to be in full-time employment, and the length of time it takes to acquire those rights has been extended.
Denmark also has tougher rules on family reunification – both the sponsor and their partner are required to be at least 24 years old, which the Danish government says is designed to prevent forced marriages.
The sponsor must also not have claimed welfare for three years and must provide a financial guarantee for their partner. Both must also pass a Danish language test.
In 2018, Denmark introduced what it called a ghetto package, a controversial plan to radically alter some residential areas, including by demolishing social housing. Areas with over 1,000 residents were defined as ghettos if more than 50% were “immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries”.
In 2021, the left of centre government passed a law that allowed refugees arriving on Danish soil to be moved to asylum centres in a partner country – and subsequently agreed with Rwanda to explore setting up a program, although that has been put on hold.
Changes will prevent refugees from ‘integrating into British life’
While some research has suggested that deterrence policies have little impact on asylum seekers’ choice of destination, but a 2017 study said Denmark’s “negative nation branding” had proved effective in limiting asylum applications.
The number of successful asylum claims has fallen to a 40-year low in Denmark, with 95% of failed asylum seekers deported from the country.
But some believe the changes could damage future generations seeking a haven from war, persecution and violence.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of Refugee Council, said: “These sweeping changes will not deter people from making dangerous crossings, but they will unfairly prevent men, women and children from putting down roots and integrating into British life.
“Refugee status represents safety from the conflict and persecution that people have fled.
“When refugees are not stuck in limbo, they feel a greater sense of belonging, as full members of their new communities with a stable future for themselves, their children and generations to come.
“We urge the government to rethink these highly impractical plans, which will also add to the backlog and chaos that the Home Office is tackling.
“Instead, they should ensure that refugees who work hard and contribute to Britain can build secure, settled lives and give back to their communities.”