The following Motion has been submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 15.1 and 15.2.
Proposer: Councillor Gunner
Seconder: Councillor Purser
Arun has a proud history of standing up for our farmers, and a deep connection to the land they farm.
This Council recognises and values the essential role that farmers play in managing our natural landscapes, contributing to biodiversity, protecting our wildlife, flood prevention and supporting sustainable local food systems within Arun.
This Council notes that the recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax which will:
a) have a devastating impact on many family farms and on the farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
b) force farmers to sell land to developers for housing in order to pay their tax bills and therefore threaten the continuing viability of family run farms.
c) threaten up to 70,000 farmers according to the Country Landowners Association.
d) threaten tenant farmers livelihoods and homes.
e) have little or no impact on those investing in land purely to avoid tax and will lead to the creation of more corporate owned mega-farms with no interest in protecting the environment and animal welfare.
f) threaten the protection of our countryside, by hindering environmental projects and conservation efforts that rely on stable, family-owned farming operations.
g) threaten the UK’s food security at a time when we already import 46% of our food at a cost to the natural environment around the world such as the Amazon rainforest.
h) have a detrimental effect on the rural economies of our country.
This Council further notes that:
a) The emerging West Sussex Local Nature Recovery Strategy requires strong collaboration with local agricultural stakeholders, who together with many environmental partners will drive numerous initiatives to protect and enhance biodiversity across the whole county, including Arun. Farms that stay within family ownership are better positioned to continue practices that support wildlife corridors, habitat preservation, and sustainable land stewardship.
b) That the conservation and protection of the South Downs National Park, 75% of which is farmland, as well as the numerous sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and nature reserves, are dependent on the co-operation of land owners and it is the family-run farms, handed down through the generations, that better support these aims.
c) At a time when many farmers in Arun are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms and destroy confidence in the agricultural community.
Therefore, this Council resolves to request that the Leader of the Council:
1) Writes to the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our four MPs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision, highlighting the impact on family farms, the environmental impacts in Arun and calling on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
2) Supports campaigns by agricultural and environmental bodies that call for tax relief for farming families that achieve environmental gains such as increased biodiversity and carbon reduction.
Minutes:
The wording of the motion has been set out below:
Arun has a proud history of standing up for our farmers, and a deep connection to the land they farm.
This Council recognises and values the essential role that farmers play in managing our natural landscapes, contributing to biodiversity, protecting our wildlife, flood prevention and supporting sustainable local food systems within Arun.
This Council notes that the recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax which will:
a) have a devastating impact on many family farms and on the farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
b) force farmers to sell land to developers for housing in order to pay their tax bills and therefore threaten the continuing viability of family run farms.
c) threaten up to 70,000 farmers according to the Country Landowners Association.
d) threaten tenant farmers livelihoods and homes.
e) have little or no impact on those investing in land purely to avoid tax and will lead to the creation of more corporate owned mega-farms with no interest in protecting the environment and animal welfare.
f) threaten the protection of our countryside, by hindering environmental projects and conservation efforts that rely on stable, family-owned farming operations.
g) threaten the UK’s food security at a time when we already import 46% of our food at a cost to the natural environment around the world such as the Amazon rainforest.
h) have a detrimental effect on the rural economies of our country.
This Council further notes that:
a) The emerging West Sussex Local Nature Recovery Strategy requires strong collaboration with local agricultural stakeholders, who together with many environmental partners will drive numerous initiatives to protect and enhance biodiversity across the whole county, including Arun. Farms that stay within family ownership are better positioned to continue practices that support wildlife corridors, habitat preservation, and sustainable land stewardship.
b) That the conservation and protection of the South Downs National Park, 75% of which is farmland, as well as the numerous sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and nature reserves, are dependent on the co-operation of land owners and it is the family-run farms, handed down through the generations, that better support these aims.
c) At a time when many farmers in Arun are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms and destroy confidence in the agricultural community.
Therefore, this Council resolves to request that the Leader of the Council:
1) Writes to the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our four MPs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision, highlighting the impact on family farms, the environmental impacts in Arun and calling on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
2) Supports campaigns by agricultural and environmental bodies that call for tax relief for farming families that achieve environmental gains such as increased biodiversity and carbon reduction.
Councillor Gunner then presented and proposed his motion. He stated that he was pleased to be able to move this motion as farmers were the backbone of Britain and were pillars of the community and literally put food on tables. As a council and as a community Councillor Gunner was of the view that we should be standing up to support farmers who protected and enriched the environment and helped to maintain food security at a very dangerous time. Councillor Gunner stated that the current government wanted to destroy family farms and to instead carpet their land with housing which was wrong for Arun. Councillor Gunner explained that this motion was almost identical to a recent motion approved by West Sussex County Council and approved by a mixture of Conservative, Reform, Liberal Democrat and Green councillors who all supported it and so he was hopeful and confident that this would be the case for tonight.
Councillor Purser then seconded the motion.
The Chair invited debate. There were Councillors speaking against the motion stating that they felt that it was an attempt to drive a wedge into the ruling alliance. They were also surprised at the motion questioning why it had been submitted and referred to the previous government’s decisions that had impacted farmers negatively in many ways and had put British food production and rural communities in crisis. Such previous decisions had left farmers grossly out of pocket and with some of the lowest priced food deals in Europe. Land values had increased exceptionally, and this had resulted in landowners banking land to avoid inheritance tax rather than produce food that was urgently needed. Previous decisions made had allowed food imports to rocket to 46% placing the biggest threat in history to UK food security. Turning to the changes to agricultural property relief, these could be understood as the majority claiming the relief would not be affected by these changes. Rich estates and the most valuable farms were being asked to pay their share, a tough decision required to plug the huge financial gap left by the last government. However, where there were multi-generational farms, each family member was entitled to pass on £1.5m inheritance allowance and true family farms would have until April 2026 to seek professional advice for their succession planning which meant that up to £3m could be passed on by two people free of inheritance tax with anything beyond that being taxed at half the rate and paid by everyone else, with heirs being able to spread the payment terms over 10 years. This was seen as a fair and balanced approach that would protect most family farms but would also plug the funding gap and allow other vital services to be provided.
Debate continued with Councillor McAuliffe stating that he agreed with the motion but that he would welcome some small changes to improve its accuracy and so he proposed to make some slight amendments.
Councillor McAuliffe then proposed the following amendment which has been set out below using bold for additions and strikethrough for any deletions:
Therefore, this Council resolves to request that the Leader of the Council:
1) Writes to the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our four MPs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision, highlighting the impact on family farms, the environmental impacts in Arun and calling on the Government to stop rethink the Family Farm Tax on farm with assets totalling less than £5m.
2) Supports campaigns by agricultural and environmental bodies that call for tax relief and enhanced environmental payments for farming families that achieve environmental gains such as increased biodiversity and carbon reduction and climate change resilience measures.
Councillor McAuliffe confirmed that he wished to add the calls from environmental payments for those farmers that introduced environmental positive, and nature based management practices on their land. The amendments added clarity and accuracy to what was being requested. The word stop was considered unhelpful in this debate as what was needed was a pause and rethink instead. There were ways to protect family farms by closing loopholes and this was the intention that Councillor McAuliffe believed councillors would support which was to protect farmers that were undertaking positive work within the landscape, for the environment and for farming. This was about farming and food production and in recognition that farming was essential to be able to deliver the nature recovery targets that had been set. This was why the second amendment had been included adding the words ‘and enhanced environmental payments’, not just tax relief, but environmental payments in recognition of doing positive things such as keeping carbon in the soil, which was hugely important as ploughing that land released this carbon. Councillor McAuliffe explained that if these enhanced environmental payments could move to restorative agriculture that would be of benefit to everybody. Climate change resilience measures were equally important, and this was why this wording had been added to the end of the second recommendation.
Councillor Wallsgrove then formally seconded this amendment.
In view of the slight amendments proposed, the Chair asked Councillor Gunner, as proposer of the motion and Councillor Purser, as seconder, if they would be happy to accept the amendment.
A request was made by Councillor Andy Cooper for members to receive a five minute adjournment to allow his group members to discuss the proposal that had been proposed at short notice.
The Chair confirmed that he saw no reason as to why the meeting could not be adjourned and formally seconded this proposal. On this being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED.
The Chair then called a short adjournment.
The Chair then resumed the meeting. Councillor Gunner confirmed that in considering the amendment, if Councillors McAuliffe and Wallsgrove would be happy to remove the wording ‘on farms with assets totalling less than £5m’, then he and Councillor Purser would be happy to accept the amendment to their motion.
This was accepted by Councillors McAuliffe and Wallsgrove as the proposer and seconder of the amendment.
The Chair returned to the substantive motion and invited debate. Councillors spoke confirming that they could not support Recommendation (1) as the Government’s changes to the exemption criteria would plug a loophole which currently allowed ‘pretend’ farmers and lifestyle buyers to purchase farms to land bank rather than produce food to avoid paying inheritance tax. They would now have to pay that tax like any other business. Recommendation (2) was supported as the government had a solid commitment to food security by backing farmers and boosting profits. By investing a record £5b to the farming budget, this was seen as the largest budget for sustainable food production in years. In addition to this, over £200m was being invested into reliance against animal disease and £110m on agricultural technology confirming additional benefits for farmers by the existing government. Given the current national financial situation the money raised would fund other vital services.
Other Councillors speaking in support of the motion and the amendment confirmed that it was vital to as much as possible to ensure that farmland and food production was protected.
Councillor Purser, as seconder of the motion, talked about his family’s long history in farming stating that they had lived hard lives and had not been wealthy in cash terms but had contributed heavily to the local economy in terms of food production and effectively managing the land and ecosystems. The proposal by the government to introduce family farm tax was a direct assault on yet another of those most important and necessary pillars of the British way of life and was set to decimate current and future generations of farmers who all relied upon their farms for their livelihoods as did we for their food, health and wellbeing. Councillor Purser stated that this introduction would result in the permanent loss and destruction of land and the erosion of yet another significant part of the nation’s proud heritage in farming. Once gone, these farms would be lost for ever. Councillor Purser encouraged members to support the motion.
Councillor Gunner, as proposer of the motion, responded to the points that had been raised by councillors in debating the motion. He asked why farmers were being discouraged to invest by taxing them when they grew successful intergenerational businesses.
The Council
RESOLVED
That the Leader of the Council:
1) Writes to the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our four MPs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision, highlighting the impact on family farms, the environmental impacts in Arun and calling on the Government to rethink the Family Farm Tax; and
2) Supports campaigns by agricultural and environmental bodies that call for tax relief and enhanced environmental paymentsfor farming families that achieve environmental gains such as increased biodiversity carbon reduction and climate change resilience measures.