Inheritance Tax

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Andrew Griffith

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Very few of us will not be aware of the challenges of the care sector from meeting constituents at our surgeries. It is why I regret the fact that one of the first actions of this Government on coming into office was to reject the consensus around the Dilnot review, which would have moved that conversation forward. We on this side of the House will continue to engage with ideas that the Prime Minister puts forward, but none of that takes away from the iniquity of inheritance tax, which is a double tax, often as a result of earned income, and sometimes even a triple tax as a result of businesses.

As I said, the scope and breadth of inheritance tax is dragging more people into its net all the time. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue, and I am very keen to hear what our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have to say on the matter.

The Conservatives believe that our homes are special. They are not just another asset to be taxed by a Government who refuse to cut out-of-control welfare. They are where we feel safe with our families, where our young take their first steps, and where we spend religious festivals and precious family moments. That is why so many of the policies we have announced recently focus precisely on those family homes.

We would make it cheaper to buy a first home for young people by removing gold-plated regulation, saving £50,000 from the price of an average new-build home, because we are the party that believes in home ownership. We would make it cheaper to buy by abolishing stamp duty on people’s primary residences and would make homes cheaper to live in by scrapping Labour’s tax on family homes—the so-called mansion tax that, in truth, applies in many parts of the country to flats and ordinary suburban homes. It applies in Birmingham, in Bristol, in Nottingham, in Edinburgh and, yes, in Manchester too. We are the party that prioritises home ownership, and now we are committed to making it free for people to pass on their family home to direct descendants.

The Government should follow our plan: no tax to buy a home, no tax to live in a home, and no tax to pass on a home to family. If the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget in two weeks’ time, he can have that one for free. If the Minister takes that back, maybe he will become the Chancellor. But we all know what Labour will choose: more welfare. Labour is not the party of home ownership. That is a Conservative value, not Labour’s. We are the party of home ownership; they are the party of welfare, and we know how many people are on out-of-work benefits in Britain today.

Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats—this week at least—can see that taxing family homes is wrong. Just two years ago he told the BBC, when they still wanted to hear from him, that

“lots of people’s homes in many areas of the country are quite valuable, and they end up being clobbered by inheritance tax…I think that’s unfair”.

We shall see whether his colleagues—current colleagues—agree with him and which Lobby they end up in today. We will see whether they are useful helpers of the Government or willing to stand up for their constituents who are being over-taxed by this Government. We would take the majority of families out of inheritance tax, abolish the truly awful family farm tax and abolish the anti-growth family business tax—and, when we can afford it within our fiscal rules, we would abolish inheritance tax entirely, because we do believe that it is an immoral tax.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. He will presumably recognise that the clue is often in the name where our businesses are concerned, as many of those largest businesses that we regard as national champions—Pilkington, John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and banks such as Lloyds—owe their origin to family businesses. The fact that they carry a surname indicates the many generations it took to build them to that power, but by taxing those businesses, we hold the entire economy back from such growth.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not.

That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Andrew Griffith

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.

I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.

There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.