For born farmers like us it’s not about the value of the land, it’s about the legacy

My Dad could remember my granny tucking him into bed during the Second World War and saying: “There you are. Your tummy is full, you are warm in bed with a roof over your head. There is no more that I can do for you.”

In that war, this country relied on Atlantic convoys to bring in food which was not available. “Dig for Victory” was the saying as everyone started to grow vegetables at home.

This was the time that my Dad was taken out of school, at the age of eight, to help with the harvest, and when the government learned the importance of food security (“Minister says food shortage plan in place as farmers threaten strike action over tax”, Sunday 17 November).

A lot of people wouldn’t get out of bed for the money we make. We’re born farmers. It isn’t about the value of the land; it is about legacy. When my Dad died in 2021, he believed that the farm would be passed to the next generation. His reward for a lifetime of hard work and investment would be the opportunity for his grandson and those beyond to continue and build.

In one sweeping statement, the chancellor has robbed my family, and many others, of that opportunity. The government has quoted facts and figures from HMRC but those figures do not show the reality of how family farming works, or the amounts of money involved. The thresholds are simply far too low.

There is a much-publicised figure of reliefs available up to the value of £3m. It is not even available if an unmarried uncle wants to pass it to his nephew who has worked with him for decades.

Here are some very simple suggestions for the Treasury to consider: limit full agricultural relief and business property relief to those whose income during their working life came from farming. For the big estates, the same relief should only to apply to land that is let out on lifetime tenancies.

There is a huge public perception that because of the value of the land, farmers are rich. Yes, there are some and they will be able to withstand this, but for many more they will not.

Linda Roberts

Culmington, Ludlow, Shropshire

Surely it is time for a proper appraisal of policies that permit large swathes of wealth being transferred from one generation to the next, that favour one small demographic at the expense of the rest of the population.

Describing farmers as being “land rich, cash poor” obfuscates issues (“Farm incomes plummeted by 50% in a year, official figures reveal as fears grow over ‘tractor tax’”, Thursday 14 November).

Having control of such a valuable asset enables raising of large sums to fund a more opulent lifestyle at favourable interest rates: private education for children, building tied cottages for relatives, barn conversions for holiday lets, high-end cars and the like, all financed by individuals appearing to earn no more than the average wage.

Another advantage not available to the majority is the facility to borrow against land to leave assets to offspring who have no intention of farming, free of inheritance tax. Finally, shouldn’t housing landlords be afforded the same advantages in the spirit of fairness if government tax policy is reversed?

David Smith

Taunton, Somerset

The uproar caused by the changes to the Agricultural Property Relief (APR) needs a degree of perspective (“Defiant Keir Starmer says he will defend controversial Budget ‘all day long’ as he rejects tractor tax U-turn”, Friday 15 November).

A married couple passing on the farm and house to their children will pay no inheritance tax unless their assets exceed £3m, not the regularly quoted figure of £1m. Thereafter, a reduced figure of 20 per cent applies, payable over 10 years.

Contrast this with a non-farming couple, who can’t claim APR, who pay a figure of 40 per cent on assets above £1m.

Both farmers and non-farmers can use the seven-year-rule to pay no inheritance tax. Why is this rarely mentioned in the current debate?

The discrepancy is clear and, despite the media onslaught, it favours the farming community.

Alan Oliver

Kesgrave, Suffolk

In the light of the resignation of Justin Welby, now might be a good time to review the role of the Christian church, and religion more generally, in our society (“Justin Welby resigns as Archbishop of Canterbury over Church’s child abuse ‘conspiracy of silence’”, Tuesday 12 November).

I would like to think we live in a secular society, in which people have the right to practice any religion they care to, provided it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others, particularly children.

Currently, I would suggest that is not the case. We are – or should be – a democratic, free-thinking, rational people who have the benefit of a Western, scientific education.

Religion may have a role in people’s lives, but it should play no part in how our society is organised or perceived. A start would be the disestablishment of the Church of England, but I suspect that will not happen.

Ewan McLeish

Marlow, Buckinghamshire

Whilst one may have sympathy with president Volodymyr Zelensky’s concern over moves by the chancellor of Germany’s contact with Russia (“Zelensky says war will ‘end sooner’ with Trump as president as he slams German chancellor’s call with Putin”, Saturday 16 November), we should remember the only thing that was left in that box – once all manner of misery and evil had escaped – was Hope.

As a new episode in this dreadful conflict appears to be starting, let us all hope for a just and lasting peace.

Colin Burke

Cartmel, Cumbria