Inheritance Tax

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can I—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member is going to make a point of order, he might at least listen to the response. As he ought to know, as an experienced parliamentarian, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has, however, made his point.

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need to offer you an apology. When I asked my question, I should have declared, or drawn attention to, my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the proud founder of two businesses, which I hope in time to pass on to my children, if the Labour party does not get in the way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the right hon. Member will know, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I thank him for putting it on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

There seems to be a disconnect in the Labour party’s understanding of the situation. Does the Minister not appreciate that the capital value of an enterprise, whether it be a farm or a business, does not necessarily equate to the revenue that it generates? Many family farms and businesses are what they would call lifestyle businesses, where people are happy to sit on what may appear to be a large capital value that yields only a very small revenue amount that will not support the taxes he is trying to levy, and at the same time only just supports a lifestyle that people are willing to tolerate. It is this imbalance that is causing so much anguish.

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million of qualifying assets over which the 100% relief applies, and that the 50% relief applies in an uncapped manner above that level, means that we are protecting our small family businesses and family farms while making sure that there is a contribution towards the public finances.

[Kit Malthouse]

Let us say that a farm is worth £3 million, ostensibly on land value. That farm might be yielding a net income to a farmer of only £30,000 to £50,000 a year, on which they are surviving. They are willing to live that way because they love living on the farm, it has been in their family for many generations and they feel a sense of stewardship and custodianship, but that revenue is not enough for them to live on and then sustain the tax that the Minister wants to levy.

[James Murray]

Without commenting on individual tax affairs, even if hypothetical, if a farm were worth £3 million, the £2.5 million allowance for the 100% relief would cover a substantial portion of that. That is in addition to the existing nil rate bands and can be transferred between spouses. If that hypothetical farm were passed on via a couple to their descendants, £5 million would be covered.

I want to emphasise that our work as a Government with farmers—who feed the nation, sustain rural communities and help to manage the land that shapes our countryside—ranges from immediate support, including the £65 million emergency package that we announced to help them cope with this summer’s drought, to opening new markets for British produce through trade deals and export opportunities.