Debate contribution: Inheritance Tax Changes: Impact on Family Farms
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Inheritance Tax Changes: Impact on Family Farms
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4793722
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion, which keeps an important issue on the agenda. I spoke on the issue in the Chamber in November when the new inheritance tax rules were announced. At the time, I and many others pointed out that the impact on Northern Ireland farmers would be harsh due to the comparatively high value of land in the Province. DAERA figures were quoted then, and again today, to underscore that fact. Thanks to a new deeper analysis of the DAERA data, we now know that the impact on the Northern Irish farming community will be even worse than feared at the time, with many more farms affected than the UK Government estimated. We have seen, as others referenced, analysis by the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers' Association of the financial impact on typical Northern Irish farms, and the findings were striking. In practical terms, the association said that the tax cost to a typical farming business of spreading its payment over 10 years could be compared with the cost of employing an extra member of staff who would contribute to the business. As Miss McIlveen said, a 100-cow dairy farm in sole ownership would have to increase its herd by 41% to make up the extra cost. A dairy farmer in my constituency told me that that would simply put the farm out of business. Between 2018 and 2024, land prices quadrupled in our local area, with some as high as £25,000 to £40,000 per acre. The geography of South Down does not help. We have the Mournes on one side and the sea on the other. That drives prices up, and to be viable means buying ground, which cannot happen in the current climate. According to the analysis, a 67-head suckler herd in sole ownership would require a 90% increase in the size of the herd. By my rough maths, that is an extra 60 head of cattle. From what little I know about this, an increase in herd size requires an increase in land, and that becomes illogical because farmers have to sell land to pay taxes and then buy land for it to be viable. That makes the whole operation unviable. The core issues remain unresolved. The agri-food sector is important to the rural economy, the environment and to our communities. I hope that the issue can be resolved so that young farmers can thrive. I do not need to imagine the stress that this is bringing on the farmers in my constituency. I hear it in their voices when they disclose to me the potential outworkings of this. Unfortunately, it brings into sharp focus the mortality of us all. One concern put to me was that if the father dropped dead, the "for sale" sign was going up. None of us knows the hour of our passing. Accidents and ill-health happen. The outworkings of the inheritance tax increase mean that there will be those who, despite being diligent in this regard, will be forced to pay to the point of losing the farm to a misfortune. It is difficult to listen to those disclosures. The reality is that if an accident befalls a loved one, it is not just that loss that has to be dealt with but the loss of the homestead and the farm. That cannot be right. The upcoming spring statement provides an opportunity for the Chancellor to revisit and reverse this damaging decision. I call on the Executive to show their support to the farming sector and to earnestly lobby the UK Government on the matter.
594 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:00 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.