Inheritance Tax

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate. I also welcome the participation of other colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my opposite numbers.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. Everybody knows, and the Government certainly recognise, that individuals do work hard to build up assets over their lives, and it is a very human instinct to want to pass that on to their loved ones, when they pass away. Yes, there has recently been a great deal of speculation in the media and on Opposition Benches about potential future changes to inheritance tax.

I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members and colleagues, although they will not be surprised to hear that I am not going to announce Government policy here today. The Budget is on 6 March, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out any changes to the tax system in the normal way. There is a great deal of speculation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

[David Linden]

Could the Minister confirm something for us? We hear the argument all the time that Ministers will not speculate and that the announcement will be made in the Budget. The blunt reality, however, is that, whether it is speeches at the Conservative party conference, op-eds in The Sun newspaper, or cosy sit-downs with political journalists, the Government do comment on what they are doing before the Budget, do they not?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member will be aware from his own party and the Opposition that there is a wide range of views within parties on policy. I am not going to speculate on tax policy. We always keep tax policy under review and always welcome insights, evidence, information and views when developing tax policy, as do the Scottish Government. We have heard a wide variety of views today. As I said, announcements will be made at the appropriate time and place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I cannot make any promises today, but I understand the important point he is making about the nil rate. Changes have been made over the years in that area, and I will come on to that point later.

The vast majority of estates pay no inheritance tax. The combination of nil-rate bands, exemptions and reliefs mean that only 5.1% of UK deaths are forecast to result in an inheritance tax liability in 2023-24. That is forecast to increase slightly to 6.3% in 2028-29: it is still a relatively small number, but it makes an important contribution to the public finances. It is forecast to raise £7.6 billion in 2023-24 and £9.9 billion in 2028-29. That revenue is important because it is spent on a whole variety of public services, levelling up and many other areas of Government policy.

The headline rate of inheritance tax is 40% but, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged, a 36% rate is charged when at least 10% of the net estate is left to charity. That is an important point of this system as well. It is important to remember that the rate is charged on the part of the estate that is above the threshold and after the application of reliefs and exemptions.

The Government have made changes since 2010 that have increased the threshold to £1 million, made the system fairer and reduced administrative burdens. For example, in 2017 the Government introduced the residence nil-rate band, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, to make it easier to pass on the family home to the next generation, but we restricted the residence nil-rate band for the wealthiest by tapering it away for estates over £2 million. More recently, we made changes so that for deaths from January 2022, over 90% of non-paying estates each tax year no longer need to complete inheritance tax forms when probate or confirmation is required. At the same time, we have tightened the rules to make sure that individuals make a fair contribution and pay the tax owed. For example, in 2017 we introduced new rules to limit abuses of the rules by people with non-domicile status who used complicated structures to make their UK homes look like offshore assets.

Several hon. Members talked about loopholes and avoidance. It is important to distinguish between the legitimate use of reliefs and those who engage in avoidance by bending the rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament and none of us ever intended. It is not true that the wealthiest do not pay inheritance tax: national statistics for the tax year 2020-21 show that taxpaying estates valued at over £1 million accounted for 81% of the total inheritance liability.

[David Linden]

If it is not true that the wealthiest do not pay inheritance tax, can the Minister tell us how much the King paid upon inheriting the Duchy of Lancaster?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I said, estates valued at over £1 million paid 81% of all inheritance tax.

I am aware of the time, and I need to leave a minute or two at the end for the wind-up, but I want to make a final point. We have had a very good discussion about inheritance tax, but we have had an inkling of the differences between the political parties. I am afraid that some Opposition Members started to delve into the politics of envy, which is a well-trodden path for the Labour party, by commenting on elitism, Oxford University and so on. Well, I can tell them that I went to Oxford, and that my Labour-voting trade unionist father, my mum, who worked on the tills at Asda, and the schoolteachers at my comprehensive, instead of being snide about the opportunities and aspiration that I had, actually applauded and supported social mobility. That is what we on the Conservative Benches do. It is disappointing to hear the tone of the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Ealing North, in another well-trodden argument, started trying to lecture us on responsible finances. We still have not had an answer to the question of where the £28 billion of spending promised by the Opposition would come from. We are more than happy to debate the issue, because we have a very clear plan for the economy: we had the very welcome and well-received national insurance cut at the autumn statement, which I do not believe the hon. Member opposed, and nor did he oppose the significant support that we gave during covid or the significant support that we have given households during the cost of living crisis. That all needs to be paid for, which is why we have higher taxes than we would like. But we are on a path to reducing them, because that is what Conservatives do. I thank hon. Members for their contributions; all their comments have been taken on board.

Football Governance

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments; I know that she has deep expertise and interest in this area. She is absolutely right, and we will be looking at models as we develop the regulator role. We have seen the Financial Conduct Authority, for example, and its role with the integrity test. There are a lot of things out there that we will genuinely try to learn from, so that we do not have to start from scratch. We will leverage expertise—there is considerable expertise at DCMS and throughout Government on establishing regulators—but we will also learn the lessons of the past.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I speak here perhaps less as a Scottish MP and more as probably the sole Glasgow East member of Fleetwood Town supporters club. I want to draw attention to pages five and six of the statement, in which the Minister talks about financial distribution through the pyramid. The fact that he has not given that power to the regulator is something that would alarm a lot of people, and would he agree that this is not so much a parachute payment as a trampoline payment?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I outlined, and as the review recommends, we should let football try to find a solution wherever possible. If it cannot find a solution, there will be a backstop. That is what we are proposing.

Fairs and Showgrounds

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

Thursday 17th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Ms Rees. I pass on my thanks to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for chairing the first part of the debate. I wish him and you a merry Christmas. We have had an excellent debate. It was never my intention for it to be combative, so I am genuinely delighted with how it has gone and with some of the things that the Minister has said.

I will sum up some of what hon. Members said in what was an excellent debate. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) rightly paid tribute to his constituent Colleen Roper, who I have had dealings with for several months. She is tenacious in raising the issue, so he was right to put that on the record. He captured the history by talking about the royal charter established under Henry VIII for the King’s Lynn Mart. That is impressive and will not have been lost on the Minister.

In my experience, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is not someone to be wrestled with often, as the Minister probably found several times. She rightly talked about the 3 million people who have been excluded, which is an indisputable fact. She quoted the ladies from Future 4 Fairgrounds, who said that it is not just a job for people, but a way of life. That is what I mean when I say that from my flat in Glasgow, I look into the yards where these people live, and I look at their caravans and equipment alongside them. It is a way of life for them and it is important for the Government to reflect on that.

I am jealous of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) as an honorary member of the Showmen’s Guild. He made an incredibly informed speech. I pay tribute to his work with the coalition Government on education. I was not unaware of that; I was looking at it only this week. I thank him for putting many of those points on the record. He spoke with a lot of authority on the issue.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), which should be, I believe, a city—we cannot get through a debate without putting that on the record—for his leadership of the APPG. It is probably quite frustrating when a young whippersnapper such as me comes along and starts prodding people to do lots of stuff, but he has a long track record of leading on these issues, and it is a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship of that group. There was a bit of a debate, in which I was certainly never going to get involved, between him and the hon. Member for South Shields. I think we can agree that the hon. Gentleman has the best seaside city resort and the hon. Lady has the best town. Perhaps we can leave it there without having a diplomatic incident.

For the purposes of Hansard, which I am sure will have got that wrong, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) was not at all suggesting that the best funfairs were in South Shields; I am sure he meant Sedgefield. He was right to talk about the nine generations that have operated over 200 years. I made precisely that point in my earlier speech about people’s long historical connection.

As Glasgow politicians, there is always a bit of banter between me and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). We might disagree about who has the best constituency, but we do not disagree that the Irn-Bru Carnival at the Scottish Event Campus is much missed this year. We look forward to it coming back. She is right to put on the record some of the issues relating to asset finance. I and several hon. Friends from Scotland wrote to the asset finance companies back in March, and some have been helpful, in terms of being a bit more flexible. She is also right to talk about the impact of the way the Showmen’s Guild was set up in regions, and to put on the record the concerns of showmen, particularly in the north of England, who are missing out on the funding and will be looking to their colleagues north of the border.

The shadow Minister was right to press the issue of the culture recovery fund. Earlier in the year, I was a bit concerned about the fact that when the taskforce was undertaken, the Showmen’s Guild was told that it could not be part of it and had to be represented by the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain. That is akin to asking the Brownies to represent the Scouts. That did not go down well with the guild, so is there any way of ensuring that the culture recovery fund can be looked at?

The Minister has been pretty candid today, which was welcome, in acknowledging that some people have been excluded. If there is that acknowledgement, the logical follow-through is to adapt ever so slightly—we are not talking about huge numbers of people—who is eligible for the culture recovery fund.

I thank the Minister, because I genuinely appreciate his tone and the contact that I had with his officials in the run-up to this debate, and I look forward to the meeting that is forthcoming following the question to the Prime Minister. The Government and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not shy away from a photo opportunity. The Minister should tell Rishi that being pictured on the teacups is pretty good—it probably trumps that Nando’s shot. The Minister would be welcome to join us on the teacups as well, of course. Any support that the Treasury could look at providing, particularly as we head towards the Budget in March, would be appreciated.

I am very grateful to the Minister for putting on the record quite so strongly his expectation that local authorities should not be cancelling fairs. I expect that this edition of Hansard will be going to just about every council officer from the Showmen’s Guild, so I welcome that.

The final thing that I want to talk about is diesel. I appreciate that that is not a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but could a formal representation go from the Minister to the Treasury to say that he has heard those concerns?

[Nigel Huddleston]

indicated assent.

[David Linden]

The Minister is nodding ever so slightly, so he is acceding to that request. If a letter could go to the Treasury outlining that, as the consultation has closed, that would be very helpful.

I want to take the opportunity to wish you, Ms Rees, and all hon. Members here a very happy Christmas. I am sure we are all looking forward to going on the teacups with Rishi when he gets his wallet out.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of fairs and showgrounds.

Gambling and Lotteries

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of the unlicensed market and to point out that gambling is a legitimate business in the UK, paying £3 billion in taxes and employing about 100,000 people. However, the industry itself acknowledges that harms can happen. It has played, and I expect it to continue to play, an important role in identifying harms and what we can do to minimise them. Its voice will be heard in this review, but we all have a shared goal of making sure that we do everything we can to minimise gambling harms.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I understand that today there is perhaps a focus on some of the online gambling, but can I ask the Minister not to forget those communities, such as in Glasgow East, where digital exclusion is still a massive issue? In that vein, when are we going to confront the fact that many of these working-class communities where lottery ticket sales are higher do not actually see a lot of the funding follow through? In my experience, it tends to go to more middle class areas with professional fundraisers.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, the review is very broad in scope for exactly this purpose. Comments, information, data and evidence can be brought in to raise all these issues, and they will be looked at carefully.

Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a detailed but perfectly fair and reasonable point. As I said, because we are currently working on the details, I am unable to give him the assurance that he is looking for, but these were exactly the kinds of factors that we were looking at when we made the request for information to the sports entities.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very lucky to count Celtic Park in my constituency and its 60,000-seater stadium. I commend to the Minister the report from the Fraser of Allander Institute about the economic contribution of Celtic football club and implore him, when he is having conversations with the Treasury, to be mindful of the fact that this is about not just sport but the impact on the local hospitality sector. When he is having those discussions with the Treasury about financial support, I ask that there is a real focus on the local economy, as well as the club itself.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the multiplier effect—the broader economic impact of sport on its local communities. We are all sport fans here, but it is also a major contributor to the economy that employs tens of thousands of people and contributes a huge amount to the Treasury every year in tax generation. He is making a perfectly valid point, and those are exactly the considerations that we are looking at now.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and David Linden

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

From evidence given to us by CLIC Sargent, we know that the NHS provides cancer treatment for young people up to the age of 25, so there is a bit of inconsistency in Government policy, and hon. Members should be mindful of that.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We need to factor in other considerations, which is why I said “if” we need to include a cut-off point. One argument in favour of restricting the age in the definition of a child is that the financial burden on the Exchequer may be considerably greater if we extended the definition beyond the age of 18. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South asked about siblings, and there is some logic to being careful about how far we extend the provisions. However, the Government will spend over £800 billion this year, and the estimated cost to the Exchequer of this legislation is around £3 million. We must be careful about saying, “That’s a drop in the ocean compared with total Government expenditure,” but it is true in this particular case.

If we do extend the definition to beyond 18, how much more would it cost? Five times more has been mentioned but, again, that means £15 million. Spending £15 million out of some £800 billion of Government expenditure to do something compassionate that is so widely supported is worthy of further consideration, so I ask the Minister to examine that carefully. I understand that the matter is subject to further consultation, so I encourage people to contribute to that debate.

As I said at the beginning, this is one of those topics that shows the House at its best. I will not delay proceedings further by repeating the comments made by others, but I will encourage those who have tabled amendments not to push them to a vote, as I think they have indicated, if that might jeopardise the overall vote.

I completely support the Bill. I have never had to go through, and hope never to have to go through, the anguish and pain of losing a child, as far too many of my colleagues and constituents have. It is right that we pass this law today to show that we stand with them, and with anybody who suffers this huge pain in the future, and to show that the Government are on their side.