The UK’s food security and the future of farming lies in Rachel Reeves’ hands, a leading MP has said as a committee called on the government to delay farm inheritance tax changes.

The environment, food and rural affairs (EFRA) committee has released a report calling on the government to delay the reforms for a year until April 2027.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget farmers would no longer be allowed to claim inheritance tax relief for farms worth more than £1m from April 2026.

The move prompted multiple protests in Westminster by farmers who said it will threaten the future of thousands of multi-generational family farms.

The EFRA committee, made up of seven Labour MPs and four Lib Dem and Tory MPs, said a pause in the implementation would “allow for better formulation of tax policy and provide the government with an opportunity to convey a positive long-term vision for farming”.

A delay would also protect vulnerable farmers who would have “more time to seek appropriate professional advice”, the MPs said.

The MPs raised concerns the change was announced “without adequate consultation, impact assessment or affordability assessment”, leaving the impact on farms and food security “disputed and unclear”.

They said it risks producing “unintended consequences” and threaten to “affect the most vulnerable”.

The MPs have called on the government to consider alternative reforms.

Read more:
Food prices could rise due to inheritance tax rise
Typical family farm ‘would have to spend 159% of its profits for a decade to pay’ tax

Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem chair of the committee, told Sky News: “There is a need for inheritance tax to be reformed.

“The use of land purchase by the super rich as a means of sheltering their wealth is something which is not in the public interest or farmers.

“But this is not the way to go about reform.

“The risk is you see farmers selling out, they will sell out to people who are not going to use land for food production then we risk losing food security – we’ve seen how foolish relying on exports is after Putin’s invasion.”

He added “as an outsider looking in”, the way in which the Treasury handled the inheritance tax announcement, after Labour said in opposition they would not change it, “has created a real problem of political authority” for Environment Secretary Steve Reed.

“It’s a problem the Treasury themselves can solve,” he said.

“Their own backbenchers increasingly think they should solve this and our report today gives them an opportunity to do that if they choose to take it.

“It really is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is over to her now.”

The committee report says before the autumn budget 70% of farmers felt optimistic about their futures, but that fell to 12% after the budget.

The survey, by the Farmers Guardian in March, also found 84% of farmers felt their mental health has been affected by the announcement.

Farmers said the government announcing the closure of applications to this year’s sustainable farming incentive with just hours to go, was also a cause.

The committee said there are other ways to achieve reform, and called on the government to publish its evaluation and rationale for not following alternative policy measures.

They also said the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a pattern of “poor communication and last-minute decision-making following rumours and departmental leaks”.

Further moves to amend the controversial assisted dying bill are being made by MPs as it returns to the Commons for another day of emotionally charged debate.

After a marathon committee stage, when more than 500 amendments were debated, of which a third were agreed, the bill returns to the Commons with 130 amendments tabled.

As a result, the final and decisive votes on whether the bill clears the Commons and heads to the House of Lords are not expected until a further debate on 13 June.

The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to receive medical assistance to die, with approval from two doctors and an expert panel.

Why is assisted dying so controversial – and where is it already legal?

In a historic vote last November, after impassioned arguments on both sides, MPs voted 330 to 275 in favour of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour, while Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against.

The Conservatives were also split, with leader Kemi Badenoch voting in favour and former PM Rishi Sunak against. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also voted against the bill.

The PM, who is attending a summit in Albania, will be absent this time, but asked for his current opinion, told reporters: “My views have been consistent throughout.”

No fewer than 44 of the new amendments have been tabled by Ms Leadbeater herself, with government backing, a move that has been criticised by opponents of the bill.

Opponents also claim some wavering MPs are preparing to switch from voting in favour or abstaining to voting against and it only needs 28 supporters to change their mind to kill the bill.

Confirmed switchers from voting in favour to against include Tory MPs George Freeman and Andrew Snowden, Reform UK chief whip Lee Anderson and ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams and Tory MP Charlie Dewhirst, who abstained previously, are now against and Labour’s Karl Turner, who voted in favour at second reading, is now abstaining.

Mr Turner, a former barrister, told Sky News that an amendment to replace a high court judge with a panel of experts “weakens the bill” by removing judicial safeguards.

But in a boost for the bill’s supporters, Reform UK’s Runcorn and Helsby by-election winner Sarah Pochin, a former magistrate, announced she would vote in favour. Her predecessor, Labour’s Mike Amesbury, voted against.

“There are enough checks and balances in place within the legislation – with a panel of experts assessing each application to have an assisted death, made up of a senior lawyer, psychiatrist, and social worker,” said Ms Pochin, who is now the only Reform UK MP supporting the bill.

A Labour MP, Jack Abbott, who voted against in November, told Sky News he was now “more than likely” to vote for the bill, which was now in a much stronger position, he said.

Ms Leadbeater’s supporters strongly deny that the bill is at risk of collapse and are accusing its opponents of “unsubstantiated claims” and of “scare stories” that misrepresent what the bill proposes.

“There is a pretty transparent attempt by opponents of the bill to try to convince MPs that there’s a big shift away from support when that simply isn’t true,” an ally of Ms Leadbeater told Sky News.

Speaking in an LBC radio phone-in on the eve of the debate on the amendments, Ms Leadbeater said she understood her bill was “an emotive issue” and there was “a lot of passion about this subject”.

But she said: “I would be prepared to be involved in a compassionate end to someone’s life if that was of their choosing. And it’s always about choice. I have friends and family who are very clear that they would want this option for themselves.

“There is overwhelming public support for a change in the law and literally everywhere I go people will stop me and say thank you for putting this forward. I would want this choice.”

Read more:
Ukrainian man charged over fires at properties and car linked to PM
An embarrassment for Starmer on migrant return hubs?

Also ahead of the debate, health minister Stephen Kinnock and justice minister Sarah Sackman wrote to all MPs defending the government’s involvement in Ms Leadbeater’s amendments to her bill.

“The government remains neutral on the passage of the bill and on the principle of assisted dying, which we have always been clear is a decision for parliament,” they wrote.

“Government has a responsibility to ensure any legislation that passes through parliament is workable, effective and enforceable.

“As such, we have provided technical, drafting support to enable the sponsor to table amendments throughout the bill’s passage. We have advised the sponsor on amendments which we deem essential or highly likely to contribute to the workability of the bill.”