News

Pembrokeshire MP denies leaking tax changes before Budget

Published

9 months ago

March 6, 2025

LOCAL MP Henry Tufnell has denied claims that he provided his father with inside information regarding upcoming changes to Inheritance Tax and Agricultural Property Relief, which were announced in the autumn Budget.

The controversy arose after reports that Mr Tufnell’s father placed part of the family’s multi-million-pound agricultural estate in a trust weeks before Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the tax changes.

Speaking to The Times last weekend, Mr Tufnell revealed that part of his family’s Cotswold estate had been placed in a trust, with his brother Albermarle as the beneficiary. While entirely legal, the move could save the estate £4m in Inheritance Tax if Mr Tufnell’s father lives another seven years.

The Times reported that Henry Tufnell’s father’s legal tax arrangements could significantly reduce the family’s future tax burden. However, the Mid & South Pembrokeshire MP insists he had no inside knowledge of the Chancellor’s plans.

‘Absurd’ to suggest insider knowledge

In the Times interview, Mr Tufnell defended his actions, stating: “It’s just absurd to suggest that I had concrete knowledge of what was going to be in the Budget as a backbench MP.”

The interview continues: “He admits, though, that he had heard rumours of a change in the offing and did discuss it with his father.

“My dad was the president of the Country Landowners Association, he sits on the board of Natural England, he’s all over what goes on in the industry.

“So when it’s being briefed out that there might be changes, of course I talked to him.”

Taking those words at face value, Mr Tufnell describes a situation in which he heard speculation about a change in Inheritance Tax and Agricultural Property Relief and mentioned it to his father. Mr Tufnell states that his parents’ actions were based on industry speculation and professional advice rather than any conversation he had with them. We accept, without reservation, that Henry Tufnell’s parents acted on that independent advice following widely reported speculation over potential changes to Inheritance Tax and Agricultural Property Relief.

A spokesperson for Mr Tufnell said: “There was talk about changes to IHT, which had been in the media for some time, and industry had been raising concerns about the possibility of it being looked at ahead of the Budget announcement. So, of course, as an MP representing a rural constituency, and as an MP from a farming background, Henry engaged constructively with the farming sector as soon as concerns were raised.”

The Herald asked Henry Tufnell’s office when he discussed the issue with his father and how many other farmers he spoke with regarding potential IHT and APR changes before the Budget. At the time of publication, no response had been received, although Mr Tufnell’s representatives had confirmed that a substantive response was forthcoming shortly. However, since publication, Mr. Tufnell’s representatives have clarified that he views discussions of publicly available information as an important part of engaging with his constituents and that there was nothing improper about discussing media speculation with his father.

At the time of writing, at 6:00pm on Wednesday, we had not received a response to either question.

Legal intervention before response

Before we received answers to our questions, Mr Tufnell’s legal team at Carter-Ruck intervened. In an email at 5:00pm on Wednesday, they urged us not to publish anything until they had received further instructions from their client.

The email referenced correspondence between this article’s writer and Joshua Beynon, Mr Tufnell’s Senior Communications Officer.

We accept that any suggestion that Henry Tufnell had privileged information and acted upon it to benefit a family member is categorically untrue. As his interview made clear, the MP did not possess insider knowledge.

To avoid any doubt, we accept the most favourable possible interpretation of his actions: namely, Henry Tufnell did no more than gossip with his father about rumours, the foundations for which were unknown to him. That is entirely different from having concrete information and acting upon it inappropriately.

If The Times is accurate, his father’s estate has avoided a potential £4m future tax liability. Henry Tufnell will not benefit personally from the arrangements made regarding the family’s Cotswold estate.

**Henry Tufnell with the Prime Minister (Image: Labour Party)**

Tax avoidance and political contradictions

Despite not raising concerns in Parliament before the Budget, Henry Tufnell is now calling for a “review” of the tax changes.

His family’s estate, worth an estimated £20m, has legally shielded part of its assets from the new tax rules, saving a potential £4m. His gilded background was underlined in a gushing profile in society magazine The Tatler. In the profile, Mr Tufnell was described as having the good looks of a Jilly Cooper antihero, while the article referred to his education at Radley public school and Brown University in the USA.

In far less privileged circumstances, thousands of farming families across the UK now face financial uncertainty, including many in Pembrokeshire.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has come under repeated fire for her abject failure to understand basic farm economics. Instead of targeting land speculators who invest in agricultural land for tax relief, the Chancellor’s changes risk breaking up family farms and damaging the UK’s future food security. The spectacle of Labour MPs, including Henry Tufnell, calling upon farmers to act now to avoid paying their “fair share”, as members of the Cabinet call it, is politically “interesting”.

Mr Tufnell never raised the issue in Parliament. On social media this week, he called for “a review” of the policy.

NFU Cymru has lobbied against the changes since the media speculated about the possibility following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s interview with the BBC on July 30. The union confirmed to us that they heard rumours of the change and lobbied Wales’s MPs to head off Rachel Reeves’s tax grab.

“We face an incredibly difficult situation, but there is still time for the Treasury to stop and think again,” NFU Cymru President Aled Jones said.

“The legitimate proposal we put to the Minister and his officials remains on the table for their consideration, and I urge them to reconsider. It will still enable the Treasury to raise further funds, it will offer a fairer and more balanced way forward, and remove much of the jeopardy for our agricultural sector, including the significant emotional and financial pressures—not forgetting the risks to national food security.”

***Rachel Reeves: Accused of not understanding farm economics by unions***

Business

Welsh Govt shifts stance on business rates after pressure from S4C and Herald

Published

11 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Sarah-Jane Absalom

Ministers release unexpected statement 48 hours after widespread concern highlighted in Welsh media

THE WELSH GOVERNMENT has announced a new package of tapered business rates relief for 2026-27, in a move that follows sustained pressure from Welsh media — including S4C Newyddion and The Pembrokeshire Herald — over the impact of revaluation on small businesses.

In Milford Haven, the hard-pressed pub sector is already feeling the impact: the annual bill for The Lord Kitchener is rising from £5,000 to £15,000, while rates at the Kimberley Public House have nearly doubled from £10,500 to £19,500. The Imperial Hall’s rates are increasing from £5,800 to £9,200, prompting director Lee Bridges to question why businesses “are being asked to pay more when we use less services”. In Haverfordwest, the annual rates bill for Eddie’s Nightclub is increasing from £57,000 to £61,500.

A written statement, issued suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, confirms that ministers will introduce a transitional “tapering mechanism” to soften steep increases for tourism, hospitality and small independent operators. Full details will be published with the draft Budget later this month.

The announcement comes less than two days after The Herald’s in-depth reporting brought forward direct concerns from Pembrokeshire business owners and councillors, highlighting the uncertainty facing one of Wales’ most important local industries.

Herald reporting credited by senior councillor

Pembrokeshire County Council Independent Group Leader Cllr Huw Carnhuan Murphy publicly thanked The Herald for pushing the issue into the spotlight.

In a statement shared on Wednesday, Cllr Murphy said: “Welcome news from Welsh Government. Thanks to Tom Sinclair for running this important item in the Herald in relation to the revaluation of businesses and the consequences it will have for many.

He added: “Newyddion S4C hefyd am redeg y stori pwysig yma ynghylch trethi busnes.,” which in English is “and thanks to S4C Newyddion as well for running this important story about business taxes.”

He added that the Independent Group “will always campaign to support our tourism and agriculture industry, on which so many residents rely within Pembrokeshire”.

Media spotlight increased pressure on Cardiff Bay

On Monday, ministers said business rates plans would be outlined “within the next two weeks”.
By Wednesday afternoon — following prominent coverage on S4C and continued pressure from The Herald — Welsh Government released an early written statement outlining new support.

Industry sources told The Herald they believed the level of public concern, amplified by the media, “forced the issue up the agenda much faster than expected”.

A cautious welcome for ‘better than nothing’

Cllr Murphy welcomed the partial support, though he stressed it fell short of what many businesses had hoped for.

“This isn’t the level of support many were hoping for,” he said, “but it is certainly much better than nothing.”

Draft Budget expected soon

The full tapered support scheme will be detailed in the Welsh Government draft Budget, expected within a fortnight.

Tourism and hospitality representatives have reserved final judgment until the figures are published, but many have expressed relief that some support will continue, following weeks of uncertainty.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

14 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.

News

Baby C trial: Mother breaks down in tears in the witness box

Published

15 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Sarah-Jane Absalom

She tells jury Christopher Phillips repeatedly offered to babysit her seven-week-old son alone in weeks before life-changing injuries were discovered

THE MOTHER of Baby C – the seven-week-old boy allegedly raped and seriously injured by Christopher Phillips – has begun giving evidence at Swansea Crown Court.

Speaking in a barely audible voice from the witness box and frequently breaking down in tears, the woman (who cannot be named for legal reasons) described the rapid deterioration of her infant son’s health in the weeks after she began a relationship with Phillips, whom she met on Tinder.

The couple started messaging shortly after Baby C’s birth in November 2020. The mother’s Tinder profile featured a photograph of herself cradling her newborn son.

She told the jury that all of their meetings took place at her flat in Pembrokeshire. Initially, Phillips paid no attention to the baby, but after about three weeks he began showing interest in the child.

“He sent me a message saying that if I ever needed time to myself – for shopping or anything – he would stay in the flat with the baby,” she said. She declined the offer, explaining to the court: “I didn’t know him well enough to leave my baby alone with him. You don’t leave your baby with someone you barely know.”

Days after Baby C received his first vaccinations, the child began screaming in his sleep. The mother described the cries as sounding “as if someone was snapping his bones” – a family expression she said she had grown up hearing.

A few days later she discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy. Alarmed, she confided in her sister and parents. Her mother (the baby’s grandmother) immediately suspected deliberate harm, referring to “some paedo” and urging her daughter to seek urgent medical help.

The following day the mother contacted her health visitor and GP. When she told Phillips about the appointments, he became angry.

“He wasn’t shouting, but his tone was different,” she said. “He was worried it would get out in the community and that he would be seen as a suspect. He told me to ‘nip it in the bud’. He said that once it had blown over he would put his offer back on the table – the offer to look after the baby. But I still wasn’t going to accept it.”

On another occasion she walked in while Phillips was changing the baby’s nappy and noticed Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot”. She told the jury she did not own a pot of Sudocrem.

On 19 January 2021, following further concerns, Baby C was examined at West Wales General Hospital. Doctors examined his testicle and anus. The mother said she felt “horrible” taking him in but “relieved and reassured” when they were allowed home with advice.

Back at the flat, however, Phillips complained that her refusal to let him have alone time with the baby was “annoying” him and accused her of “micro-managing”. “I was just looking after my baby,” she said.

The mother then described the events of 24 January 2021, the night she dialled 999.

Baby C began screaming in a way she had never heard before. “It wasn’t a cry of pain exactly, but I knew something was terribly wrong,” she said.

At the time the screaming started, Phillips was in the baby’s room, supposedly changing his nappy. When she tried to go in, Phillips told her to stay in the living room. Ignoring him, she entered and saw Phillips fastening the nappy. He then left the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on – something she said immediately struck her as wrong.

Baby C was taken to hospital in a critical condition with catastrophic injuries. He survived but suffered life-changing harm.

The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

Christopher Phillips (37), of Warrior Reach, Burton, Pembrokeshire, denies eleven counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between 20 December 2020 and 25 January 2021.

Cross-examination of the mother by the prosecution is due to begin tomorrow (Thursday, Dec 4). Closing speeches and the judge’s summing-up are expected next week, with the jury likely to retire to consider verdicts on Tuesday.