Inheritance Tax

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

We live in challenging times, with heightened security threats, inflation and cost of living pressures driven by Trump’s war in the middle east. Our NHS is still recovering from the pandemic and from Liz Truss, yet the priority set out by the Conservatives in today’s motion is cutting public spending to give more money away to people inheriting sums of money greater than £1 million. That is sad and predictable, but it is not surprising.

As it stands, the Conservatives know that they are not serious contenders for government, so they have reached back into a comfort zone. They hope that by sending a message to some of the wealthiest people in our society, they might hang on to a few more votes, but I am afraid that people across the income spectrum in my constituency and across the country will see right through this policy. My constituents know that we can ill afford a tax giveaway to people who are already fortunate enough to inherit £1 million tax free.

The facts matter. Under the current system, only around one in 20 people pay inheritance tax on their estates at all, so the winners from the Conservatives’ proposition will be about 5% of the population, while the rest of us are left to pick up the bill. An independent analysis has found that the proposal could cost the Exchequer upwards of £10 billion a year, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. The political choice matters too. I believe in maximising opportunities for people from all backgrounds. The question we should be debating in this House today is not how we make things easier for those who rely on inherited wealth, but how we make things easier for those who do not have access to inherited wealth.

Last year, the bank of mum and dad provided more than £9 billion in gifts to their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren. Every parent and grandparent who has the ability to offer support to their loved ones will do so and should be encouraged to do so. The average sum given by the bank of mum and dad was £55,000—a very significant amount of money, wherever you are in the country. That is great for those who are in such a fortunate position. There will be people in this Chamber who have been able to give and receive money, and we should acknowledge that.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the bank of mum and dad comes from the hard work of mum and dad so that they can pass things on to their children?

[Andrew Lewin]

I absolutely understand that point, but there are many millions of people in this country who work just as hard but who, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to hand down tens of thousands of pounds to their children.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to use the opportunity presented by this debate to talk a little bit about my own proposal on intergenerational fairness. I have a policy idea called the citizens advance, which I came up with a year or so ago. It is a policy offer that would give people the opportunity to move their lives forward irrespective of their background. This is how it would work: after 10 years in work—10 years of national insurance contributions—the state would say to people, “We’re going to give you a choice. You can keep your current state retirement age”—which for most young adults today is 68—“or you can put back your state retirement age by a year to 69, and in return, you will receive the value of one year of your state pension as a lump sum.” From April next year, that will be £13,000. That is my idea; I am very pleased that the Social Market Foundation has taken it on, and I encourage any Members who are interested to read its detailed and costed policy paper. I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Treasury that they will be hearing more from me on this subject in the weeks and months to come.

I make that point because I want to engage seriously with the idea of intergenerational fairness, which is important to me and to many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

This is, without doubt, one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question: when someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children’s future, why are they penalised by this Government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored, so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subject to the politics of envy? The answer, I hope, will be after the next election.

Labour’s answer is always the same. Its instinct is to ask, “Who can we tax?” That is not me saying that, but the Work and Pensions Secretary, who admitted that every conversation he had had with Labour Back-Bench MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. It is constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture them now, sitting high in their Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend. Surrey and the south-west comes into their sights: the successful businesses, the skilled workforce and the resulting high house prices. Rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax.

But people’s assets are not lottery winnings. They are the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness; it is a penalty on individual responsibility. It sends a damaging message that those who work hard, build a business, and save for their and their family’s future will be punished for doing so.

I believe in fairness, not redistribution. At the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice: a Labour Government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country’s defence and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children’s future; or a Conservative party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual not the state, and that planning for the future should be encouraged, not penalised. Whether it is an increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax or the family farm tax, Labour’s approach is to tax success. Labour is asset-stripping our country, and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity.

At the next general election, the choice could not be clearer: a Labour party, facilitated by the Liberal Democrats, that sees taxpayers as targets; or a Conservative party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work, and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. People’s money is their own. It is not the Government’s money that Labour has not taxed yet.