Farmers across the UK are expressing their deep frustration with the Labour Party. Recent changes to inheritance tax announced during the Budget have sparked protests, with tractors appearing on the streets of Westminster as farmers voice their concerns. At the National Farmers’ Union annual conference, Environment Secretary Steve Reed faced a chorus of boos from attendees. The new inheritance tax policy has been labeled as the “final nail in the coffin” for many British farms, which are already grappling with an existential crisis exacerbated by Brexit, rising operational costs, and the impacts of climate change.
Moreover, the agricultural sector is under increasing scrutiny for its contribution to the pollution of Britain’s rivers, prompting the introduction of stricter environmental regulations that many farmers argue are financially unmanageable. The i Paper’s Save Britain’s Rivers campaign is advocating for enhanced support for farmers, enabling them to manage their lands sustainably while ensuring the nation’s food security. Three farmers share their experiences regarding the obstacles they face and what actions ministers must take to offer assistance.
‘I take the environment seriously’
Rob Davies proudly showcases a massive green cylindrical structure situated in the picturesque valley of his dairy farm in Herefordshire. “It still amazes me that you can pump cold cow waste in and generate electricity from it,” he remarks. This green structure serves as a slurry store, where farmers convert animal waste into fertiliser.
Davies’ slurry store is linked to an anaerobic digester, a machine that breaks down waste to create biogas, which is then utilized to generate electricity. His farm, which raises approximately 130 dairy cows and 250,000 organic chickens annually, achieves 95 percent energy self-sufficiency through the use of the anaerobic digester and solar panels. However, reaching this level of sustainability required substantial investment. The slurry store alone cost around £200,000, while the anaerobic digester added another £300,000 to his expenses. To manage these costs, Davies has taken out a loan spread over ten years, meaning about 2.5p from every litre of milk sold will contribute to repaying the debt. For context, the average milk price in January of this year was 46.01p per litre, and Davies produces around 1.3 million litres annually.
Davies made the decision to invest in this new setup amidst heightened scrutiny of farmers in his region regarding the pollution of the River Wye. This river, which originates in the Welsh mountains and winds through Herefordshire, has suffered significantly due to the runoff of muck spread on adjacent farmlands during rainfall.
The nitrates and phosphates in this runoff lead to algal blooms, which deplete oxygen levels in the river, resulting in the death of fish and other aquatic life. In response to criticism for failing to effectively regulate the situation, the Environment Agency (EA) has tightened its rules concerning manure storage and spreading and has increased its inspection frequency. Last year, the agency conducted 48 inspections within the Wye catchment area over the course of just 48 hours, including one on Davies’ farm. Farmers are now mandated to store slurry to prevent it from leaching into water courses during rainfall.
At the time of inspection, Davies had a slurry store that was 40 years old and nearing the end of its useful life. “We were under the EA’s scrutiny… we had little choice but to invest in a new store to ensure compliance,” he explains. Government grants are available to aid farmers in meeting environmental regulations, including the Slurry Infrastructure Grant, which can cover up to 40 percent of the costs associated with new infrastructure. However, farmers often find themselves navigating a bureaucratic maze that makes accessing these grants nearly impossible. Davies was denied the grant due to the fact that the substance stored in his tank was technically classified as “digestate” because of the anaerobic digester, thus rendering it ineligible for funding.
Though taking on substantial debt was not his preferred choice, Davies felt compelled to invest, especially since his son is set to take over the family business. “I told my son, if we want to continue farming, we had no choice. We either invest this money or reduce the number of cows,” he states. He warns that any cuts to the farming budget would be catastrophic for both farmers and the environment. “Fortunately, we have a solid milk contract and have managed our budget carefully,” he adds. “But not all farms are in the same position. Until Steve Reed can ensure profitability across all farms, I can’t stress enough how crucial the Slurry Infrastructure Grant is for compliance—it’s essential given the high costs involved.” While Davies acknowledges that farmers have “some soul-searching to do” regarding pollution, he insists that most are “willing to invest” if provided with adequate support. “I consider myself an environmentalist. I take the environment very seriously,” he concludes.
Why Labour must not cut the farming budget
In the latest Budget, Rachel Reeves confirmed that the government plans to allocate £2.4 billion towards agricultural subsidies in 2025/26, which aligns closely with the spending levels of the previous Conservative government. However, the Chancellor has suggested that budget cuts may be forthcoming, indicating that the funding will be “reviewed” to ensure it remains “affordable.” This comes as Reeves prepares for widespread public spending reductions across various sectors, including welfare and international aid, ahead of the Spring Statement.
Many British farms would face closure without government subsidies. Research commissioned by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) indicates that an annual agricultural budget of approximately £4 billion is necessary to meet the statutory environmental, climate, and policy demands placed on farmers. Additionally, a report by the National Trust, RSPB, and The Wildlife Trusts reveals that farmers require £5.9 billion per year to meet the UK’s legally binding nature and climate targets. The i Paper’s Save Britain’s Rivers manifesto outlines five critical actions the government must take to restore the nation’s waterways, including strengthening the environmental grants system that supports farmers in implementing measures to reduce pollution.
‘You can’t do these things overnight’
When The i Paper visited Manor Farm, located on National Trust land in the Chilterns, the weather was cold and overcast. The fields were bare and muddy, but by spring, they will be vibrant with wildflowers, attracting various birds, pollinators, and insects. The farm’s tenant, Andrew Stubbings, is in the process of transforming large portions of the land from traditional farming practices to areas dedicated to conservation and biodiversity. This initiative began nearly 40 years ago with his father.
Stubbings has witnessed remarkable results from his commitment to allowing parts of his farm to return to nature. In 2022, his land was designated as a “Local Wildlife Site” due to the rich diversity of plants, birds, insects, and animals that have made a comeback in the fields. Stubbings represents a vision for the future of British farming. Currently, agriculture contributes roughly 11 percent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. The dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss necessitate that more of Britain’s land is allocated for tree planting and nature restoration. Consequently, the government’s farming grants now favor farmers who are adopting environmental practices, contrasting sharply with the previous EU system that subsidized farmers based solely on land ownership.
While Stubbings benefits from multiple grants under the Environmental Land Management Scheme, he urges caution against imposing rapid changes on farmers, emphasizing that circumstances differ widely between farms. “You can’t implement these changes overnight,” he cautions. “The government is pushing for environmental progress, which is admirable, but it’s not universally applicable—some farms may not be suited for conservation. Ultimately, it’s up to the farmer to determine what works for their land.”
Ministers are currently developing a long-anticipated Land Use Framework that will outline which areas of England are best suited for food production, nature conservation, and housing development. Stubbings believes that those farming on “high-quality agricultural land” should be encouraged to maximize production. On the other hand, farms situated on less productive land, like his, may need to explore alternative revenue sources. “Diversification is key. If it means changing your mindset, then that’s what you need to do,” he advises.
‘Would any of my children want to take this on?’
“Stop the family farm tax,” reads the protest signs on the way to Chalkpit Farm, located just south of Canterbury in Kent. Among the many challenges currently facing farmers, the recent changes to inheritance tax laws have sparked significant unrest within the industry.
In the Budget, Reeves announced that starting in April 2026, agricultural assets valued over £1 million will incur a 20 percent inheritance tax. The government maintains that only the wealthiest farmers will be affected by this policy, which also targets those who purchase agricultural land to evade taxes. However, the NFU argues that these new regulations could be disastrous for numerous farming families.
Mike Barker, 58, acquired Chalkpit Farm with his wife in 2019, having previously been tenants of the farm that has been in his wife’s family for 65 years. The farm is appraised at £4.5 million, with additional commercial properties on the site valued at £3.5 million. Barker has calculated that his children could face an inheritance tax bill of approximately £600,000. Given that the tax can be paid over ten years, this translates to about £60,000 annually for his children during their first decade of managing the farm. Notably, there are various strategies a farm owner could employ to minimize this tax burden, such as transferring the estate at least seven years prior to their death.
Barker has four sons but is worried that the tax burden will deter them from taking over. “It feels as though we’re being penalized for the hard work of three generations,” he laments. “Would any of my children want to take this on? They might just decide it’s better to sell the whole thing. This tax change undermines the multi-generational essence that is so deeply rooted in farming culture.”
If his children do assume control of the farm, Barker fears there won’t be sufficient resources to reinvest in the business. This includes the environmental initiatives he is currently pursuing, such as planting flowers, trees, and hedgerows. “To undertake the projects we’re being asked to implement, we first need to be profitable,” he points out. While Barker is not fundamentally opposed to paying inheritance tax, he criticizes the government for failing to consult with the farming community on the best way to implement these changes. “The pressing question is, how can this industry thrive if it becomes increasingly unattractive for new entrants?” he asks.
