Sir Keir Starmer accused of ‘undermining’ case for IHT

Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of undermining the Treasury and Defra’s arguments over inheritance changes (IHT), admitting the policy is primarily about raising money rather than targeting “super-rich” tax dodgers.

The matter was raised during a meeting of the Liaison Committee in Westminster on Thursday (19 December), made up of the chairs of various cross-party select committees.

See also: Farmers ‘in it for the money’, says Defra secretary Reed

Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) committee, Alistair Carmichael quizzed the prime minister on why the government wants to impose IHT on faming assets, and what the impact might be.

Sir Keir responded that the primary aim was to raise revenues, saying no particular group was targeted.

“The purpose was to raise revenue in the budget. We had to balance the books. It was not aimed at individuals,” he said.

“What the very wealthy do with their money within the rules is a matter for them.”

Sir Keir insisted that the (£1m) threshold was put in place “to allow family farms to continue being passed on without being affected by inheritance tax,” and insisted that the Treasury’s estimates of just 500 farms a year being affected were “robust”.

“Currently 73% of APR claims are less than £1m and 40% of APR goes to the 70% of the wealthiest claimants,” said Sir Keir.

“I am confident this gets the balance right between raising the revenue we need while protecting estates.”

Asked if he would encourage the chancellor of the exchequer Rachel Reeves to meet with farming unions to discuss the policy, Sir Keir said “the chancellor will manage her own diary”.

Raising money

Alistair Carmichael said the prime minister’s comments had undermined the case made by Treasury and Defra ministers “who have sought to pretend that this was about tackling the Jeremy Clarksons and James Dysons of this world”.

“It was clear from his answers that it is just about raising money,” he said. “He could not have been clearer that, if farmers are caught and farms have to be sold, then that is fine by him.

“If that truly is the government position on family farms – and the prime minister ought to be the one to know – then it is seriously concerning,” added Alistair.

“For someone who has repeatedly said that ‘food security is national security’, he does not seem altogether concerned about the people at the heart of our food production.”

NFU president Tom Bradshaw condemned what he saw as “an indiscriminate revenue-raising measure with no thought given to who it impacts”.

“What’s worse is that the government has clearly forgotten the reason agricultural inheritance tax reliefs were brought in in the first place – to ensure that farms would not be sold or broken up following the death of the owner and could continue to produce high quality British food through each generation,” he said.

“It’s clear that this government has entirely broken with that premise, and it will be farming, then its associated industries, and then consumers who will bear the impact.”