Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. Along with my sponsor, the late Lord Plumb, of Coleshill, he has long stood out as being so knowledgeable about farming and the countryside. He has given immense and dedicated service to this House over so many years, and he is a local lad who has done his county proud. We shall all miss him greatly, and we thank him for his great service.

I also pay tribute to the outgoing hereditary Peers and their knowledge, which passes through generations, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am probably the first and last member of my family who will enter Parliament or politics, so I am in awe of those who have served with such longevity. They have all made a massive contribution and will be greatly missed.

I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the impact that the clean energy proposals will have on farming and the countryside, taking probably about 10% of land each year out of food production. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, farming is essential. We are only 60% self-sufficient in this country, and in certain fruit and vegetable cases we are only 55% self-sufficient, so it is a diminishing asset if we lose the land to clean energy proposals.

Last week the Minister responded to a Question from me on the SFI and whether farmers would benefit. I am not entirely convinced that she grasped the point—just made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—about recognising this as a public good and rewarding farmers for temporarily storing floodwater on farmland. We cannot expect them to do it; they are not operating as a charity. They are trying to make money in very difficult circumstances—we are potentially facing another drought this year, given the rainfall this month—so we need to have a defined understanding of how their contribution will be recognised through the SFI.

I have particular concerns about these regulations, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Roborough brought the amendment for debate. I am concerned about two aspects in particular. First, before 1 January 2025, approximately 83,000 farm holdings were receiving the basic payment scheme before the change to delinked payments in England came into effect. After 1 January 2025, there were 32,200 active SFI agreements, with a growing number of businesses having more than one agreement due to how the scheme is administered by the RPA. That immediately demonstrates that there are probably fewer farmers with SFI agreements than even that number suggests. My second concern is about the lack of clarity we can expect when SFI 2027 comes into effect. The Minister is very aware of rural issues, given her previous constituency representation. There will be real hardship, as my noble friend Lord Roborough indicated, and I will address that.

I represented quite a large upland area for the last five years I was in the other place, and I am currently patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services. I make a plea to the Minister to be as absolutely clear as the Government can be as to how the schemes will apply for common land, to upland farmers and to tenant farmers. In north Yorkshire in particular, about 48% of the farms are tenanted and, when a solar panel scheme takes a big chunk of the tenanted farm out of production, that leaves them with very little area on which they can claim. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will look carefully at the gap between the existing schemes remaining in force, and the fact that if you are in an existing scheme, you are probably unable to apply: you are locked out of an environmental scheme until early 2028 at the earliest.

The pace at which basic farm payments are declining and the rate at which the new schemes are coming into effect will pose very real issues of hardship for farmers. I hope that that is an aspect that the Minister will address when she sums up the debate on these regulations.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot compete with the noble Earl, Lord Devon. First of all, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and my receipt of delinked payments.

The first Lord Carrington, the third Lord Carrington and the sixth Lord Carrington were all Ministers of agriculture. The most famous of them was the third Lord Carrington, a Liberal, who introduced a policy of smallholdings for farmers during the Boer War and the First World War. That policy seems to be the guiding light for what the Government are currently doing on the SFI payments—concentrating on the small farmers with 50 hectares or less, rather than the larger farmers, who will be capped, if they get money at all, at £100,000.

I am speaking very much as a working, hands-on farmer, and I must say that I have never seen anything quite like it in all the 50 or more years that I have been involved in farming. I want to just bring to the attention of the House some of the real horror stories that are going on, even as we speak. They are based on what we are doing on our farm. We have decided for the first time ever not to plant spring crops, because we cannot risk the weather remaining as dry as it is, and therefore the crops not germinating. We are having tremendous trouble not so much in getting fertiliser, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned, but in getting red diesel. The price of red diesel is the real crucifier of most farmers in this country at the moment. Then, of course, we have the prices for the commodities that we are producing, all of which make leaving the land fallow the best option for us.

In East Anglia, in Norfolk, I gather, crops of wheat are currently being irrigated. That is a very expensive exercise for a crop that is not going to produce a great deal of money. We grow potatoes, and we have reduced our potato acreage considerably due to prices. We had a very good harvest last year, but prices worldwide are terrible. Now we have the potential problem of the SPS agreement. Under the SPS agreement, certain chemicals are going to be banned. If you buy a packet of crisps, that crisp will actually have been taken from a potato three years ago, and the chemicals that will have been used will be banned under the new SPS agreement, unless the Government get a waiver. That means, of course, that those potatoes will go straight into an anaerobic digester, if they cannot be sold.

A similar problem exists for sugar beet. Sugar beet is very susceptible, as everyone knows, to virus yellows; it is estimated that 60% of all sugar beet grown in this country is affected by virus yellows. There are very few other profitable break crops, which means that the following year you will not be able to get the yields you want out of wheats, and so on and so forth. So it is a pretty drastic situation out there.

I am a very lucky farmer, as we are fortunate to live in the murder capital of England. We have filming for “Midsomer Murders” going on even as we speak, and that is much more profitable than a crop of wheat. I am also in a part of the country where we can grow houses. I am lucky, but others are not so fortunately placed in the farming world.

All this, of course, makes the Government’s byline, “Food security is national security”, almost worthless. I am therefore going to ask just one question of the Minister. It is driven by the fact that farmers need to plan, and what we are getting at the moment is not nearly sufficient to enable us to plan for the future. Can the Minister reassure the House on how Ministers and the department are supporting farmers to business plan now by providing forward plans of the SFI and countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes, as they are offered in both 2027 and 2028? Only with that information can we make sense of our farming.

Like everybody else, I thank noble Lords very much for all the support they have given us hereditaries. I will still be here, but sitting on the steps of the Throne rather than in the Chamber.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to declare my interest as a member of a farming company and also involved in the fertiliser industry, which was mentioned a little earlier. Fertilisers and fuel are farmers’ most expensive costs, and we see unprecedented increases ahead of them, on top of three bad harvests in a row.

I want to dwell for a moment on the SFI and the capped payments. What capped payments do is reward inefficiency; they militate against investment, efficiency, productivity, progress and scale. All the things that farming over many generations has contributed to this nation are at risk of being thrown away carelessly by the capped payments that these regulations will impose.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned the land use framework. It is going to be a disaster for farming and terrible for food security. It contemplates in table 1 that fully 1.7 million hectares of productive land will be removed from agriculture, out of a total of 9.6 million hectares. That is about a fifth—and, at £2,000 per hectare gross income, which is what, on average, a mixed farm would hope to gain, it represents a £3.4 billion hit to the rural economy. We cannot afford this in terms of food security and we cannot afford it economically. That £3.4 billion loss is out of a £13.9 billion total gross value added from agriculture. It is between one-fifth and one-quarter of the entire economic output of agriculture in our islands, in all its forms: arable, livestock, fruit, veg, grains and so forth. It is a fantasy to think that somehow, magically—it is magical thinking—we are going to have a 20% efficiency improvement. This adds to further insults with the APR/BPR issue, and the fact that farmers can have their land compulsorily purchased from under them, under the NSIP regime for solar, destroying the credibility and capacity of farms already under pressure: pressures aggravated by the cash flow problems from SFI.

It is hard to get fertiliser as it is in this nation—it is my trade; I know how difficult it is to secure the cargoes, fighting off the rest of the world—yet this Government, by choice, are going to make it even harder to get fertiliser delivered to this nation to support our farmers and underpin our food security with the introduction of insane carbon taxes that will add rocket boosters to the food price inflation that is already barrelling down the tracks.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the recommendations in the Batters review is about active farming and ensuring that the payments that we make from government go to people who are farming and supporting the food production that our country so badly needs if we are to have food security. That is what we are trying to do.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I very much welcome the announcement on SFI support for smaller farms, although I have many of the same reservations as the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. However, does the Minister recognise that the proposed 62% rise in electricity standing charges in April, which already accounts for 60% of energy bills, will drive food inflation and dramatically affect the competitiveness of intensive farming and horticulture, which are already facing imports of products grown to lower standards overseas? Do these sectors remain a priority for the Secretary of State for Defra?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a really important point. There are a number of challenges for farming around things such as electricity prices, and oil is now being affected by the ongoing war. We are critically aware of that. It is not just farming; there are a number of industries where these kinds of pressures are going to be challenging. One thing that we are doing in Defra is trying to work these issues through. My colleague, Angela Eagle MP, who is the Farming Minister, is talking regularly to farmers about these issues. We have to look at how we can support and manage these kinds of challenges.

Construction Industry: Timber

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. Those of us who have been involved in working with the construction industry will be aware that there is a quite a large lobby for the use of hemp in this country—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of it. As we move forward with more sustainable building, we have to look at all options, and I am sure we can consider hemp as part of that.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, among other important issues, the 2025 national security strategy highlights the need to ensure our supply chains, energy and critical goods. However, the significance of homegrown timber is overlooked, despite the fact that it was declared an essential industry during the Covid pandemic. As we have heard, timber products are vital to construction, infrastructure, housing and logistics. Please can the Minister confirm that timber is now recognised as vital to national security?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we do not think the amount of imported timber is the way forward, and we have to change that. The noble Lord said that 10% is homegrown; our figures are that 80% is imported. It is important that we look at how best to turn that around. Importing huge amounts of end-product is not good for our national security, so it is important that we look at how we increase homegrown timber.

Biodiversity and the Countryside

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I too am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I must also say that I am the second barrel to the gun of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. As the subject is almost completely dependent on a strong and stable farming industry, I will direct my remarks to the state and prospects of that industry. I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with membership of the NFU, the CLA and the Central Chilterns Farmer Cluster.

Those who read Farmers Weekly will have seen last week the shocking headline that the McCain Farmdex report had reported that 51% of farmers have considered leaving the industry over the last 12 months, and 61% say that work affects their mental health. Is this a surprise? We have seen seven Secretaries of State at Defra over six years. This gives farmers little confidence in the commitment to or long-term planning for the industry.

We had the Budget bombshell of the inadequately thought through inheritance tax proposal, which will shortly come into force, destroying both confidence and investment in the industry. We had the abrupt ending of the 2024 sustainable farming incentive and the old basic payments scheme. We had a national food strategy published in July that refers heavily to a promised but undelivered land use framework, a 25-year farming road map and a profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.

At the same time, in the real world of farming, arable farmers have suffered reduced yields for the 2024 and 2025 harvests, and very low prices because of the strength of sterling and good harvests elsewhere. Potato farmers had a disastrous 2024 crop, as well as poor demand, and they are now sending off quality potatoes for animal feed and anaerobic digesters. The 2025 crop is good, but, due to favourable harvests elsewhere, the market has collapsed. Sugar beet farmers are handing back contracts to British Sugar, as it is often grown at a loss and chemicals to control virus yellows are restricted. Chemicals are similarly restricted with rape, and success or failure is a lottery.

For some livestock farmers, the situation is more stable, but profitability remains a struggle due to the lack of pricing power. Animal diseases such as bluetongue and avian flu are a growing threat. Meanwhile, dairy farmers are struggling to cover the cost of production as the price of milk falls.

The result of all this is that some farmers are selling up, investment has stalled and, as we have heard, contract farmers such as Velcourt are reducing their acreage as they cannot make a decent return on capital employed.

Ultimately, the business of farming is producing food profitably and sustainably for a growing population. Environmental work can be driven only by profitability. It therefore comes as no surprise that farmers and landowners are looking at other uses of their land, such as solar farms, that will provide a secure and decent return. Let us therefore please stop criticising farmers for the loss of good agricultural land in the absence of policies that enable them to farm profitably.

The way forward is for the Government to cease prevaricating and make their decisions on future farm support. When will we see the 2026 SFI and the land use strategy, which has already been mentioned, and when will the farming profitability review be published?

Happily, it is not all doom and gloom on the farming front. The All-Party Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture has released its report, Feeding Britain Sustainably to 2050. The report calls for more locally grown food, lower inputs and emissions and a smaller environmental footprint, and argues that policies to support rather than hinder farmers—like tax hikes—and to relieve pressure on farmland through a land use framework are needed. Current policies undermine productivity and innovation, promoting environmental goals at the expense of food production.

We require co-ordination across government on policies, and there needs to be a complete rethink on support for domestic food production. The report pointed to the strong scientific evidence that indicates that a land-sparing approach, which involves harnessing farming innovations to optimise high-yield production on as small an area of land as possible, would leave core land intact for nature and carbon sequestration. This offers a more efficient and cost-effective basis for farm policy to deliver on food, climate and biodiversity goals. Are the Government considering this approach?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by the Government’s frequently quoted phrase,

“food security is national security”.

Does this involve producing more of our own food, or tying into more food imports?

Farming: 25-year Road Map

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I welcome the road map, but can the Minister confirm that fruit and vegetable growers will be very much part of this review? The removal of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme has caused considerable distress among those growers, and the fact that the scheme still exists in Scotland means that our fruit and vegetable growers are no longer competing on a level playing field.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are very keen to ensure that horticulture remains at the heart of any future farming plans. If we are to have a thriving food sector and become more sustainable, fruit and vegetables will clearly be critical to that, as currently we import so much of them. Obviously, I cannot say what will be included in the road map, but horticulture is at the heart of our discussions.

Farming and Rural Communities

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my active farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing this debate, and all noble Lords who have contributed so far on the wide number of topics that it involves. I think we can all agree there is vast uncertainty in farming and rural policy due to government action on taxes, SFI and, most importantly, the empty public purse. This is compounded by the forthcoming land use framework, the national food strategy, the 25-year farming road map, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Renters’ Rights Bill and much more.

Despite the uncertainty, farm businesses need to move on, although planning in relation to environmental measures and the horticultural sector must wait until further government announcements on the SFI later this year, as well as any replacement for the fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Productive, profitable farming needs to look at an industry without subsidies but with a level playing field when it comes to trade policy and import of agricultural products using methods and chemicals denied to our own farmers. However, the result of decreasing government support will have substantial fallout in the rural community, which the Government will need to address.

Unsubsidised farming competing internationally will not be able to afford voluntary environmental good work unless it benefits their farming system. Continuing support for the environment and biodiversity will be required, albeit in a more targeted manner. Parallel to this, it is great to see that, in the other place, Alistair Carmichael has introduced the food supply chain fairness Bill, which hopefully will increase margins for our farmers against major retailers.

As far as this debate is concerned, I wish to highlight the importance of growth and productivity in farming to the rural economy and particularly how to facilitate much-needed investment in agricultural science, innovation and technology. The APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, of which I am a member, has focused on the need to attract investment to support farm innovation, as the UK is a recognised powerhouse in terms of plant science and agri-research. The big challenge is to convert all these wonderful ideas into accessible, profitable commercial farming, and, for this, investment needs to be attracted from both the public and private sectors. So far, we have not been successful in launching public/private partnerships involving government, industry, science and investors. To bridge the gap between scientific research and commercialisation of these ideas, we need to study how other countries, such as Canada, Brazil and Australia, have successfully used this model of public/private partnerships to achieve this end.

The Oxford-Cambridge arc growth corridor is a welcome move by the Government to encourage growth based on our enviable scientific research. We need a series of innovation hubs with infrastructure and ecosystems which attract and support high-growth start-ups, investors and corporate partners. This works well in the United States and France. To quote a recent article in the Financial Times:

“Frequent convening of entrepreneurs, accelerators and talent is … vital. So is physical co-location of research, capital and industry”.


Our public finances may be weak, but the returns on investment in areas where we lead the world, such as agricultural-related science, far outweigh the costs.

With government encouragement, innovation hubs and a stable investment climate, we will be able to emulate the United States in targeting a 40% increase in food production by 2050, while reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%. With all the self-induced financial upsets, can the Minister tell us how the Government plan to bring stability into the agricultural industry, as this is the basic requirement for investment and growth?

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely understand that the closure so quickly and unexpectedly has caused difficulties and concern—I just want to say that. However, it is important that, looking to the 25-year farming road map that we are developing, part of the reasoning behind that is to try to give that kind of security. It is also important that, when we look at opening the SFI scheme next time, all this is taken into consideration, so that our reforms produce a more stable scheme. He is absolutely right that farmers need certainty and security, because farming is looking at long-term investments and farmers need to be able to know how to make those investments. So I take his point.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests are set out in the register and that I am likely to be affected by the withdrawal of SFI 24. I want to just probe a little further on the two questions that were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. The Government claim that the promised six-week warning of closure was not given due to the potential spike in applications causing budget overspend. Surely, Defra has been monitoring this spending versus budget and advising Ministers accordingly. Please can the Minister confirm that she is satisfied with the efficacy of the Defra review process and, if so, why the Government did not take early action to avoid this serial blow to farming and the environment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, I am very aware that the sudden closure, when farmers were expecting more notice, has not been easy and that, for many people who were intending to put in applications, as the noble Lord said about himself, that has caused difficulties. I have friends who are in that boat, so I am very aware that difficulties were caused. I will take the concerns of the House back to the Farming Minister and explain that the unexpected pause and its impacts are felt very strongly by this House. I am happy to commit to do that, because it is important.

Rural Economy

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate—or perhaps, in view of earlier remarks, I should say Primate—for tabling this timely debate. I draw attention to my farming and other rural interests as set out in the register.

As most economists and others would agree, if growth is the Government’s priority then their Budget should incentivise businesses to grow, rather than raise taxes on them. This applies throughout the economy but is particularly relevant in the case of rural business, which is dominated by farming and small family businesses. I note, however, that the Government have moved from the growth that they were targeting in opposition to the less ambitious task of raising living standards in the recently announced six milestones. The rise of over 16% in the national living wage—a 40% rise in just five years—together with the increase in employers’ national insurance to 15% will have a disproportionate impact on horticulture, tourism and the hospitality industry. This is not promoting economic growth and creating favourable conditions for investment.

On top of this, as we have heard, there are the changes to APR and BPR. I will not dwell on this, as it has been the subject of much debate already, but will repeat my remarks from a previous occasion. I pointed out that independently verified figures were required for those likely to be affected, in view of the significant differences in the estimates of the NFU, the CLA, Defra and the Treasury. At that point, a sensible government decision on tax could follow. This is particularly important in the light of the 2019 report by the Office of Tax Simplification, which said:

“It is generally understood that the main policy rationale for BPR and APR is to prevent the sale or break up of businesses or farms to finance Inheritance Tax payments following the death of the owner”.


No doubt the Minister or her Treasury colleagues will tell us what has changed since then.

In this debate, I wish to highlight the effect of these tax changes on growth and productivity in the rural economy and how they undermine much-needed investment and innovation. Family businesses of all types will be quantifying their future tax liabilities and avoiding value-adding investments that would increase their tax burden. Long-term resilience, diversification, competitiveness and environmental care will all be affected. On the farming side, this is compounded by rising input prices, the unexpected cuts in BPR and APR, delays in some farming subsidies and poor profitability. This has resulted in farmers reducing investment and not hiring staff. The Government’s claim that they have committed £5 billion to farming rings particularly hollow when inflation is taken into account and after the inheritance tax hike.

Reduced investment affects productivity through new technology, buildings and IT systems. I am a member of the APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, where we have focused on the need to attract investment to support farm-level innovation, as the UK is a recognised powerhouse in plant science and agriscience. Robotic equipment, autonomous machinery and the use of AI to advance crop and livestock breeding, together with vertical farming, will improve productivity, efficiency and the environment.

I note that none of these technological advances is covered by the eight areas of focus—that is, the areas that will generate the most growth—identified in the recent announcement of the Government’s industrial strategy. With the right investment climate, we might even be able to emulate the United States in trying to deliver a 40% increase in food production by 2050 and reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%. Can the Minister tell us how the Government’s industrial strategy and new tax regime will support this type of productivity investment?

Although noble Lords have mentioned many other important issues, the tax system is the most important factor in the growth of the rural economy and it is far from being fit for purpose. It inhibits growth, not just in farming but in horticulture, hospitality and tourism—I could go on—as well as in family businesses, from builders to butchers and garden centres to timber merchants. Contrast this with the support being given to so-called creative industries producing films, TV and video games. Tax credits for this industry are calculated to cost the Treasury £2 billion a year, compared to the new cap on BPR and APR which will generate the Treasury some £520 million a year. The Government have chosen fun over food security and family businesses.

Farming Families

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing this debate forward and for her extremely powerful speech. I declare my interests in farming as set out in the register.

Like others, I attended the farming demonstration in Whitehall on Tuesday, which only confirmed the desperation in the farming and small-business community in relation to the Budget measures affecting them, particularly the changes to APR and BPR. I would like to concentrate on the likely effect of these measures on growth and investment in the industry and, by association, the continuity of family farms.

When a previous Government first introduced these inheritance tax reliefs, it was on the basis that tax charges, when there was a change of ownership of a family business, were viewed as having a

“damaging effect on risk-taking and enterprise within a particularly important sector of the economy”.

This rationale remains, and is why agricultural relief has existed since the late 19th century, when estate duty was introduced. Using IHT reliefs to pass on a family farm is not about avoiding tax; it is about facilitating the long-term stewardship of the land and keeping the family business going.

Unfortunately, at present there is considerable dispute on the number and nature of farming businesses likely to be affected, so I urge the Minister to ensure that the Treasury, Defra, the NFU and the CLA establish an agreed factual base as soon as possible, as well as then having the much-needed meeting between the Chancellor and the NFU.

Remember Mark Twain’s dictum:

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.


Perhaps this is case here. Current government figures for APR claims appear to be based on only one year—2020-21—and no BPR figures have been given. Clearly, this is insufficient information. The £1 million combined APR/BPR limit per person will protect only the very smallest of farms. These tend to be smallholdings operated as a sideline for people with other sources of income; they are not the businesses that provide most of the nation’s food.

The payment of the proposed IHT in an industry of low and volatile returns, which is asset rich and cash poor, will result in the sale of land, which will affect the viability of farms and inevitably have huge consequences for further investment in both working capital and fixed capital, which could also increase any future IHT liability. Have the Government assessed in any way the likely impact on growth and productivity in farming as well as the consequential effect on related businesses and communities?