Should we end the tax policy kite-flying?

Introduction

The tragic death of 78-year-old Yorkshire farmer John “Philip” Charlesworth in October 2024 sent shockwaves through the farming community and beyond.

However, some nine months later, his case has taken on broader political significance.

The case has become emblematic of the dangers of speculative tax policy leaks, or “kite-flying,” and a call for more responsible policymaking.

The tragic case of Philip Charlesworth

Mr Charlesworth died by suicide on 29 October 2024. This was the day before the Autumn Budget was set to confirm controversial changes to important inheritance tax (IHT) reliefs – Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief (APR).

The recent inquest concluded that the looming policy shift, and the media speculation surrounding it, were significant factors in his death.

According to his family, he became “fixated” on fears that changes to agricultural assets would force the sale of half their 70-acre family farm.

In the absence of official clarity, weeks of press briefings and rumoured policy drafts had created a climate of dread, particularly among older landowners like Mr Charlesworth.

He left behind a note with detailed financial calculations and had been caring for his unwell wife.

Coverage of the inquest was widespread. While national broadsheets like The Times and BBC News focused on the facts and the coroner’s findings, farming and conservative media outlets went further, describing the policy rollout as “vindictive” and accusing the government of pushing farmers into psychological crisis.

His son, Jonathan Charlesworth, was quoted as saying his father “didn’t know the details, but the scaremongering frightened him to death.”

The problem with policy leaks

“Kite-flying” refers to the government practice of floating policy changes in the media (often via leaks or briefings) before any official announcement, to gauge public reaction or soften the ground.

This practice has long been criticised as undermining parliamentary protocol and public trust.

Successive Commons Speakers and senior MPs have condemned pre-Budget leaks as a discourtesy to Parliament.

For example, upon taking office in 2009, Speaker John Bercow explicitly told ministers “the House must be the first to hear [key policy statements], and they should not be released beforehand.”

He pledged to end the routine of ministers feeding announcements to newspapers or the BBC’s Today programme before informing MPs.

Bercow later rebuked Chancellor George Osborne in 2013 when the Evening Standard accidentally tweeted out Budget details early. He noted that “pre-briefing of Budget proposals is a matter of concern to me and to the House” and formally pressing the Chancellor on whether leak practices had occurred.

His successor, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has been equally vocal.

Hoyle has repeatedly admonished governments (of any party) for “parading” budget details in the press.

Just before the Autumn 2024 Budget, he scolded Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the Commons for giving significant fiscal policy details to the media: “It is not acceptable… I don’t want it to continue,” he warned, calling the early briefings “a supreme discourtesy” to MPs.

Hoyle pointed out the irony that “the party now in government [Labour] used to complain” about the previous administration leaking budgets, “and are now doing the same themselves… Get your acts together on all sides.”.

This frustration echoed his reprimand of Rishi Sunak’s Treasury in 2021. Hoyle said the “continuous leaking of significant announcements… undermined one of the biggest moments in the parliamentary calendar”, since Budgets are supposed to be revealed to everyone simultaneously in the Commons.

In that 2021 case, a Reuters analysis found 10 out of 13 major budget measures had been reported in advance. This was a level of pre-announcement that Hoyle and his deputy termed “very disappointing”, violating the principle of Parliament-first disclosure.

Senior MPs from both government and opposition have also criticised kite-flying of tax policy.

In a 2012 urgent Commons debate, Labour’s Chris Leslie blasted leaks of the Coalition’s Budget as “clear and flagrant violations” of the Ministerial Code, “an insult to the primacy of Parliament”. The Ministerial Code indeed says “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”

Successive governments have nominally agreed with this principle.

For instance, former Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2021 reiterated that “constitutional norms ought to apply” and that if ministers dodge Commons statements, the Speaker can enforce accountability via urgent questions.

Despite such promises, the reality is that chancellors routinely engage in media “kite-flying” of non-market-sensitive measures (and sometimes more) in the run-up to Budgets.

A Treasury official even admitted: “It is usual practice for non-market sensitive policies to be trailed ahead of the Budget… This time has been no different.”.

Critics argue this erodes the impact of the Budget speech and denies MPs the chance to interrogate policies first. As Speaker Hoyle wryly observed in 2024, if everything is leaked “the way things are going, [getting] a seat in the chamber” won’t matter since “everything will have already been published” by Budget day.

Beyond procedure, there have been ethical and practical criticisms of kite-flying.

The practice can sow confusion or anxiety among the public when tentative proposals hit headlines without context. Advisers note that weeks of speculative headlines make it harder for families and businesses to plan.

One commentary pointed out that back in 1947, Chancellor Hugh Dalton resigned for leaking one Budget tip to a journalist (the information hit the paper 20 minutes before he spoke).

Former Speaker Bercow and others have suggested that pre-briefing policies contributes to voter cynicism and a diminished House of Commons, as key announcements turn into media soundbites rather than democratic debates.

In summary, there is a long-standing cross-party consensus (at least in words) that leaking Budget plans or tax changes to the press is improper.

However, despite occasional apologies and promises to reform (often after a Speaker’s performative dressing-down), the practice continues, drawing regular condemnation from parliamentary authorities.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to IHT have been controversial and there has been strong lobbying for their reform. It seems that the Government might be listening.

However, this tragic episode also illustrates the wider issue of ‘kite-flying’.

There should be urgent questions about how policy is communicated, how governments manage public expectations, and whether Westminster’s addiction to “soft-launching” ideas in the press has gone too far.

In the words of one rural MP: “No one should feel driven to such despair by a newspaper article about a tax policy that hasn’t even been published yet.”

The John Charlesworth case may yet be the tragic turning point that forces the political class to rethink how it does business.