Debate contribution: Inheritance Tax Changes: Impact on Family Farms

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .

MLA
Mrs Deborah Erskine
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist 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 4793744

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I also declare an interest: my in-laws are farmers. It is no surprise that, as a representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I see at first hand the massive impact that Labour's ill-thought-out inheritance tax policy is having on our family farms. That is what I want to focus on: the real-life impact on our farming families. The outworkings are burnout, stress, anxiety, worry about unexpected death and more. This policy is essentially daylight robbery: a land grab by the Labour Government on farms that have been in families for decades. I have spoken many times in the Chamber about the perfect storm that is facing our agriculture community: rising costs, avian flu, bovine TB, the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, bad weather and a lack of understanding of the sector and its needs. Now, we have this governmental land grab. The farming community has not just been hit with a triple whammy; it is being hit constantly. Agriculture is no small part of our economy: it is worth £6 billion. There are 26,000 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland that give employment to 51,000 people. What are we doing to support those farm businesses? That is not some hypothetical question; it is a question that has been posed to me a number of times by the community that I represent. I do not say this lightly: there are people, right now, who are really worried about a sudden death on a farm. The chances of sudden death are a lot higher on a farm due to the nature of the business. People are worried about what the taxman will bring, even when a hearse is pulling out of their laneway and they are grieving the death of a loved one. Think on that for one moment. There will be no time for those families to grieve. Instead, they will have to pick up the pieces after a massive bill has landed on their doormat.

Absolutely. The Member makes a very important point, and I have seen that a number of times. This policy is ripping the heart out of our rural communities. We have to be real: governmental policies are putting farmers under pressure and causing stress in communities. In the Chamber, we talk an awful lot about mental health, and that is important, but we forget about the mental health of our farmers. With ammonia regulations choking development and bovine TB not being addressed quickly enough, it beggars belief that Governments would advocate for a scenario in which meat comes from other countries as a result of their trying to reduce greenhouse emissions on farms here. We are not encouraging our own food security or helping our own farming community. From what I can see, we are essentially encouraging the break up of family farms. Young people do not want a millstone around their neck. They will really struggle with taking on farms with massive amounts of tax payments. The changes to inheritance tax will affect our food security and our economy as a whole. Those who have no idea about farming may think that the £1 million cap sounds huge. In reality, taking land prices, machinery and all that into account, the figures do not take long to mount up. There are very few viable farms worth under £1 million, but those farmers are not bathing in sterling banknotes. Land value has been mentioned in the debate. When you look at road infrastructure projects and the value of the land that is required to make way for their construction, you see how land value is an issue. Like myself, the Minister was at the UFU rally and heard about the plight of our farmers. Since then, what has he done to bring that plight right to the door of our Chancellor? As I have always highlighted in the Chamber, our farmers are not and should not be the scapegoat for reducing emissions or pollution in our waterways. There are many more places and people at which the finger should be pointed. It is time. It is time to step up. It is time to stop ripping the heart out of our rural communities and to start supporting our farmers. The warm words that we have heard in the Chamber today are not enough. It is only right that we sing with one voice and urgently seek to have the changes reversed.

733 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.06 (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 (0.89).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.08No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.89Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.65
Another identity-related subject0.17
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.16
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01

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.

Challenge this classification