Opinion: IHT change is welcome, but it’s still a terrible policy
© Phil Weedon The increase in the agricultural and business property relief announced before Christmas was a welcome surprise.
The rise from £1m to £2.5m came on the back of lots of hard work, lobbying and protesting over the past 14 months.
Credit needs to be given to the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) and the organisers of the various protests as well as anyone, farmer or not, who opposed the initial changes.
See also: Opinion – it’s the farmer who carries all the risk of regen
About the author
The value and strength of the NFU has shone through this year and will be vital next year as we push for more change.
Their strategy for lobbying Labour MPs while keeping the story in the news and gaining public support was exemplary.
It is no coincidence that Tom Bradshaw met with prime minister Keir Starmer shortly before the inheritance (IHT) changes were announced.
Farms able to claim both spouses’ full relief could have saved £600,000 due to their hard work.
Anyone in this situation who is not a member of the NFU needs to reconsider their position.
The membership fee is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount they just saved you on this issue alone.
It is easy to be critical of the NFU when there is so much policy that seems to work against agriculture, but I’d hate to see where we would be if it weren’t for them.
While the IHT change was welcome, it cannot be the end of the campaigning, as it still a terrible policy.
It’s gone from being a catastrophic problem to just a really big problem. Many of the original issues remain.
There is still no incentive to invest for farms above the threshold, farms continue to incur large professional fees for valuations and planning and, most importantly, the problem persists for the elderly and vulnerable with no time to plan before April.
A complete U-turn would be the ideal solution, but if this is not politically palatable we need a good explanation as to why the “clawback” solution proposed by the NFU and the CLA can’t be implemented.
This was an option to maintain full relief until the land is sold, at which point the full 40% tax would be due.
I am yet to see a good reason as to why this has not been carried forward.
At least on the face of it, this solution would be the best for all parties.
It would remove the problem for farmers who genuinely want to pass the farm through the generations and raise more revenue for the government.
These issues and solutions need repeating in the media, and the NFU and others must keep pushing them forward both publicly and behind the scenes.
It was ultimately Labour MPs raising their concerns that led to the change of policy and we need to keep pressure on those MPs, who know how damaging the policy is, to push for more change.
This will mean it remains a headache for the prime minister and will mean further change is possible.
In a funny way, a year of protests and constant media coverage of the IHT issues has been a good thing for farmers.
It has brought farming into the spotlight and will have made the public and politicians more aware of the myriad problems we face.
We now need to keep up the momentum of our campaigning to capitalise on this moment for positive change on all fronts.