Opinion: Defra secretary ‘lacks compassion’ over family farm tax

Last week’s NFU conference was never going to be a celebration, given the numerous issues overhanging the sector at the moment.

The presence of Defra secretary Steve Reed wasn’t going to improve the mood either.

Yes, he was applauded by some for at least showing up, though really he had no choice – it being the year’s biggest farming conference of the industry he represents, and a mere 100 yards from his office.

See also: Editor’s view – Ask not what Defra can do for you

So, to a frosty atmosphere, Mr Reed spoke.

There were some positives (seasonal workers, Higher Level Stewardship etc).

But, with his first mention of inheritance tax (IHT), the temperature dropped, as protesters unfurled banners and other delegates uprooted and left.

Then, with the Q&A session starting, the room temperature plummeted to polar territory.

First up… me.

I posed a challenging, personal question about my mother – an active farmer of 90 years, widow for more than 20 of them, representing numerous others in a similar position, having taken good, professional tax advice in the past.

Told that the imposition of IHT on farm assets would not be changed, she sees no way out, apart from wishing her life away. “What do you say to her?” I asked.

No comment

Unable to answer the question, Mr Reed descended into “I’m not able to comment on individual circumstances” mode, missing the point that the question was actually about this considerable group of people, not just my mother.  

The chair of the session, BBC Farming Today editor Charlotte Smith, interjected.

“No, the principle of the policy means that, for some people, not being here next year feels like they are doing their family, brutally, a favour,” she explained (paraphrased).

Mr Reed (on repeat): “I can’t comment on that.”

Both NFU president Tom Bradshaw and Ms Smith offered simple solutions to help this vulnerable group of people, caught in the eye of the storm. The response: “Polices are not going to change, the chancellor has been clear.”

Next up was Joe Stanley, an NFU county chair, suggesting that IHT was “the issue sucking all the oxygen out of the room”.

Everyone in the world who can count to more than two disagrees with the Treasury’s figures.

The embattled Mr Reed perked up… “Well, no one needs to pay this tax. Plan! That is good business, it’s common sense,” he suggested.

Loud applause

Mr Stanley responded: “So you need the money, but if you plan you won’t have to pay it. Well that’s an arse about face way of a policy,” he said, to even louder applause.

So there we were. As clearly laid out by Mr Reed, if you are a 90-year-old widow and have taken good tax advice, you are stuffed.

If you are a 50-year-old farmer, then plan. There is no need to pay the tax. It’s good business sense.

The absurdity of this policy was clearly explained by the minister in two completely contradictory answers.

Furthermore, the complete lack of compassion, empathy and recognition in his response was appalling.

I don’t know whether he is deaf, doesn’t care, or what, but he has to act fast. Mr Bradshaw was later asked what it would take to bring change. “A political moment” seemed to be the answer.

I know a 90-year old who may well provide that moment – a tough cookie, one of 13, honed out of Sussex Weald clay, from a pre-World War II era, who certainly wouldn’t “spare the horses”.