EXPOSED: How Starmer broke MP rules on his own £400k land years before planning tax raid on farmers

Sir Keir Starmer “failed” to register a plot of land worth more than £100,000 as an MP.

It comes as the Prime Minister faces considerable backlash over his proposed changes to inheritance tax exemptions for farmers. This proposal is partly designed to close the loop that allows wealthy farmers to purchase farmland primarily for tax avoidance.

Starmer’s breach of the MPs’ code of conduct came to light during an investigation launched by the Commons Standards Commissioner on 8 June 2022.

Kathryn Stone started the inquiry in response to complaints that between 6 March 2022 and 13 May 2022, Starmer had failed, on three occasions, to register income and hospitality that he had accepted within the 28-day deadline set by the House.

However, during her probe, she found four further instances of late entries, which included gifts from football teams and an £18,450 advance from publisher HarperCollins for a book he was writing at the time.

In addition to providing an explanation, apology and reassurances that measures had been put in place to prevent any reoccurrence, Starmer informed the Commissioner that he was in the process of selling a plot of land for a sum that exceeded the £100,000 threshold for registration set by the House.

Under the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, MPs are required to register interests within 28 days.

“Sir Keir said he had been communicating with the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests on this matter, and, having had the land valued in January 2022, and put the land on the market in March 2022, he was waiting for the sale to complete so that he could register the correct value. I decided to include this matter as part of my inquiry,” Stone wrote in her report at the time.

Having considered the information available to Stone, she concluded that Sir Keir had “failed” to register the eight interests, including the plot of land, within the 28-day deadline set by the House and had breached the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.

The commissioner added that the eight breaches “were minor and/or inadvertent”, and “there was no attempt to mislead”.

Stone asked Starmer to meet the 40 Registrar to discuss his obligations within the Rules and Guide to the Rules. he confirmed that such an appointment had been made for 25 August 2022.

In a letter to Ms Stone, the Labour leader wrote that the late declarations were the “result of an administrative error within my office” and said he took full responsibility and apologised.

A Labour Party spokesperson said at the time: “Keir Starmer takes his responsibilities to the Register very seriously and has apologised to the Commissioner for this inadvertent error.

“He has assured the Commissioner that his office processes have been reviewed to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Starmer had acquired the seven-acre field in Oxted, Surrey, in the 1990s to give to his parents, who used it to look after neglected donkeys whose owners could no longer care for them.

A follow-up investigation by the Sunday Mirror revealed he eventually sold the plot of land – which did not have planning permission – for around £350-£400,000.

A neighbouring field, slightly smaller in size, was sold for £400,000 earlier in 2022 – and local estate agents confirmed to the newspaper the two fields were worth roughly the same amount.

A Labour source at the time confirmed the sale had been completed, but Starmer’s office did not comment further.

LATEST MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS

• Nigel Farage pays tribute to ‘British-ness’ of protests
• Behind the scenes with Will Hollis on the farmer battle bus
• How Trump could END Ukraine war

GB News has approached Downing Street for comment.

Two years after the breach of conduct, Starmer finds himself embroiled in an ongoing row with farmers and the rural community over his plans to overhaul inheritance tax rules for farmers.

Under the current arrangement, agricultural property relief (APR) allows family farms to be passed down tax-free in a policy intended to bolster food security and keep people on the land.

This 100 per cent relief will be scrapped from April 6, 2026. Under the new rules, agricultural properties and assets valued over £1million will no longer be fully exempt from inheritance tax.

Properties valued above this threshold will receive 50 per cent relief, resulting in an effective IHT rate of 20 -per cent on the excess value.

This reform aims to make the relief more targeted, primarily affecting larger estates while still protecting smaller family farms.

There was an argument that agricultural property relief had become a loophole exploited not just by traditional farmers but also by wealthy individuals purchasing farmland primarily for tax avoidance.

By capping the tax-free threshold, the government aimed to close this loophole, ensuring that only those actively farming could benefit from significant reliefs, not just landowners.

The environment secretary, Steve Reed, has stated that changes to inheritance tax rules would potentially generate around £200 million annually for the NHS and other public services. He also insists that “only about 500 estates a year will pay more under the new scheme than they do today”.

However, small farmers aren’t buying it, arguing that these changes could force them to sell land to cover tax bills, potentially undermining food security and family farm traditions.

Appearing before MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) committee on Tuesday as thousands of farmers marched on Westminster demanding a U-turn, Reed was grilled over the numbers.

Chairman Alistair Carmichael said there were “a lot more than 500 (farmers) here saying they’re going to be affected”, and asked Reed whether they were wrong.

He replied: “Well, assuming these projections from HMRC, validated by the OBR and IFS, are correct then many of them, probably happily, are wrong because there are things that they can do to plan their tax affairs as most businesses or asset owners would do to limit their liability.

“The numbers I’ve heard bandied around are enormous and very, very frightening if people were to believe them.”

He acknowledged the changes would be “unsettling” and said he was “listening” to concerns, but that most farmers would not face a hike.