From: Paul Richardson, Kings Mill Road, Driffield.

There seems to be a general impression, gained from your reader's letters, that the chancellor's changes in the budget to property relief, only apply to farmers. This is not correct.

Whilst APR (agricultural property relief) does apply to farmers, BPR (business property relief) applies to all unquoted businesses.

The Chancellor's action in the Budget regarding inheritance tax, applies equally to APR and BPR, and thus to all businesses no matter what, not just farmers.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves poses outside 11 Downing Street, London, with her ministerial red box, before delivering her Budget in the Houses of Parliament. PIC: Lucy North/PA Wire

placeholder image — Chancellor Rachel Reeves poses outside 11 Downing Street, London, with her ministerial red box, before delivering her Budget in the Houses of Parliament. PIC: Lucy North/PA Wire

Many of these businesses will also like farming, have gone from generation to generation, and will suffer the same fate as farming due the Chancellor's actions.

I have yet to see a letter in ‘Letters to the Editor’ drawing attention to this, they appear to be exclusively on the effect on the farming community.

Unfortunately The Yorkshire Post in its comment columns adds weight to this, as do most of its correspondents.

An example of this, is David Behrens article in The YP on November 23, entitled, ‘Betrayed farmers and muck-spreading BBC’. This article does not mention any effect on businesses other than farming. He mentions "factoring in costly farm machinery" and indeed both APR and BPR include all such assets.

However I am sure there are many in the haulage industry for example, and others, who have extensive assets in trucks, equipment, and premises etc. which will be included, and are at least equal to those of farmers.

In the same edition there is an interesting letter from John Rayner of North Ferriby which concludes by stating "The key test for APR eligibility, before fixing rates and threshold levels, should be the deceased owner's level of active or former engagement in farming, not the size or value of the farm". This seems a very sensible idea and should also apply to BPR and businesses.

There was an article in The Yorkshire Post dated November 14 by no less a person than Thomas Martin, chair of Arco Ltd., entitled ‘Confidence ruined..in 76 minutes’. This referred to the Budget and its effect as above on what he described as "family businesses”, and mentioned such businesses as Bettys and Taylors trading for 105 years, Howarth Timber 184 years, and AW Hainsworth 240 years, as being subject to inheritance tax in the new regulations relating to BPR, when the owner dies.

Did The YP comment on this.? Apart from a small paragraph in the same paper at the end of its comment on farming, and I quote "The IHT changes aren't just causing disquiet amongst farmers, small business owners across Yorkshire also feel let down by the changes".

Come on YP Editor, let us have some balance, both in your comments, and hopefully letters to the editor.