Inheritance Tax

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jeremy Wright

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses.

There is a divide the size of Manchester’s Etihad arena in British politics today: between those who want to tax family farms, and those who do not; between those who want to tax family businesses, and those who do not; and now, between those who want to tax family homes, and those who do not.

Not content with the highest tax burden in peacetime history, in their first Budget the Government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home. That is because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a taxman who refuses to make hard choices and to cut welfare.

We will hear later from the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); she has been a stalwart defender of Britain’s farmers, who this Government have attacked. I will speak briefly to the family businesses that this Government are also attacking. Many of them are small businesses: people who get up every day and take on the responsibility of hiring—often hiring young people—of making payroll and of creating growth in this country.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will respond to the point on farms, but before the shadow Chancellor moves on, does he agree that one of the many examples of foolishness in the Government’s approach to a tax on the inheritance of farmland is that there is a challenge with the age of farmers? We need more young people in farming, and if the Government make it more difficult and expensive for those young people most likely to go into farming—namely, the children of farming families—they will exacerbate that primary problem.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The original reason for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour Governments respected was that generational aspect—the fact that a business or farm does not necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle will pick up on that point later.

I will move on to businesses, which, as Members across the House will know, are far more numerous than the farms who we know are impacted. Inheritance tax affects businesses in every one of our constituencies, on every one of our high streets and in every one of our trading estates. Often they are businesses that have been in the same family for multiple generations. This is causing extreme jeopardy, to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests.

Edmund Burke, a man much beloved on the Opposition Benches, said that society is a partnership

“between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.”

There could be no better manifestation of that than Britain’s family businesses, which are rooted in their local community and provide jobs down the generations. Yet this Government are hellbent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face. We Conservatives are on the side of family businesses.

EU Trading Relationship

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not give way, as everyone has been very good on timing. I will get through my speech to give the Minister as much time as possible to deal with all of the points raised.

In all seriousness, across all western European economies, we face a real crisis of trust in politics and a rise in extremism among people who do not necessarily see the solutions to the problems their countries face in arguing them out reasonably, as we are doing today. Why any genuine democrat, whatever their personal views, could possibly think that reversing a decision made by the people in 2016 is the right approach—[Interruption.] Although it is refreshing to make common cause with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy),who indeed does not do that, it is also refreshing, sort of, to hear the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) set out the misguided but at least honest approach of desiring to return to the rule of Brussels via a full customs union, which I understand is not on the Government’s agenda.

We Conservatives have set out five clear tests to protect people’s trust and confidence. There must be no backsliding on free movement, no new money paid to the European Union and no reduction in our fishing rights, including—I will take an intervention from the Green party’s hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on this if she would like—no backsliding on the environmental protection for sand eels that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says is vital to the protection of British seabirds and puffins. I see no intervention coming, so I will move on, but the EU is litigating against the British Government right now to prevent that environmental protection measure from being implemented. The last two tests are: no rule taking, dynamic alignment or ECJ jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding working with anybody on a defence pact—I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that there must be no linkage between defending European soil and the transactional approach to British fishing taken by some countries—no undermining of or compromise on the primacy of NATO. Those are the tests that, in our view, will maintain the trust of the British people. I hope that the Minister will put our fears to rest.

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill currently before Parliament is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how a Government may fail the test. It is a Trojan horse, a blank cheque forcing this Government to become a rule-taker. I realise that many colleagues are new to this place, although many are not and have much more distinguished service histories than myself, but I hope that when colleagues look at that Bill and it is scrutinised in the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons legislative Committees, they will look at the deficiencies of that Bill under this or any other Government going forward.

We have heard calls for a return to open borders via a youth mobility scheme. While previous Governments have put in place youth mobility schemes of a certain volume, as the Government considers that return, it would be interesting to hear what the impact would be on British graduates, whose wage premium is the lowest it has ever been. What impact would opening the floodgates have on the rental crisis in London, or on the burdens of the NHS? There was some talk about improving education, but we already have visa schemes for work and visa schemes to come here to study. What will be the incrementality of a youth mobility scheme?

We have heard a number of times about this being a moment for cool heads, not for piling on retaliatory tariffs in a global trade war, and Members will commend themselves on how progressive and level-headed they are, but let us take a balanced view. It was not the US that unilaterally threatened to invoke article 16 to prevent British citizens having access to vaccines; it was not the US that kicked the United Kingdom out of Horizon, a scheme entirely separate from our membership of the European Union; and it is not the US that is still depriving British citizens of the use of e-gates when they travel—an opportunity that we afford visitors from the EU coming to this country, so let us just have some balance in that debate.

To be clear, given the relative scale of the opportunity and the fact that we already have a free trade goods deal with the European Union, were we in government, the Conservatives would have prioritised—right now—a US trade deal. It has been 170 days since President Trump was elected, but the Government have yet to publish any objectives for their negotiations with the US. Whatever we might think about those objectives, British exporters today are paying the price for the absence of that agreement. Through that absence of transparency, Parliament is being disrespected and none of us has any idea which businesses or farm sectors may pay the price for that deal in future.

Our hard-won freedoms offer us the unrivalled chance, if we seize it, to steer our own course in a difficult and uncertain world. We can have the best of all worlds: trade with Europe, North America, the gulf, Asia and Africa. The Conservatives would not pursue one of those many attractive opportunities in a prejudiced way at the expense of others, and I hope that is also the Government’s position.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.