Inheritance Tax

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give away—I am enjoying the contributions.

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member mentions countries growing faster than Great Britain. Can he name a single country in the G7 that is growing faster?

[Andrew Griffith]

As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth.

While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital. Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities.

Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is good to see the shadow Chancellor open this debate, because after his conference speech I too was not sure whether he would be trusted to close it. The shadow Chancellor was not the only Conservative Front Bencher to deliver an interesting conference speech, as the Leader of the Opposition simultaneously told us that every spending commitment would be matched by a source of funding, but then proceeded to announce a string of unfunded pledges—[Interruption.] Oh we got the numbers. It is clear that “Keminomics”—[Interruption.] I think the official Opposition are slightly rattled, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now clear that “Keminomics” is simply Trussonomics 2.0, and if Conservative Members get anywhere near the levers of power again, or if they choose to hand the keys to No. 10 to Reform UK, they will once again propel this country towards another crash in the public finances.

Let me turn to the substance of the motion. We Liberal Democrats agree that the inheritance tax system is not fair. Ordinary families can face an inheritance tax rate of 40%, while those inheriting estates worth tens of billions of pounds are often able to avoid paying their fair share through complex tax planning and accounting arrangements.

[Noah Law]

There are issues with the current administration of the tax, but those are more to do with the fact that many of the wealthiest are avoiding it. Does the hon. Lady agree that businesses are genuinely in a better place to receive tax planning advice, so while there are a lot of retorts about the difficulties of selling plant and machinery, for example, businesses are better placed than households to take on that tax planning?

[Daisy Cooper]

Households and businesses feel absolutely hammered by the tax burden at the moment. On the subject of this particular motion, I hope we can agree that there is a problem because the wealthiest people can avoid inheritance tax through various loopholes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Lady really believe that the top 4% of households are being “hammered” by inheritance tax right now? I do not believe that is the case.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman’s first question was broader and was asking about the capacity of businesses generally to pay for advance tax planning. Hopefully we can all agree that the tax code in this country is so complicated that unfortunately people must seek expert tax advice. Our tax system could be much simpler. The point that I was trying to make is that there are problems and loopholes with this particular tax. We have one of the highest headline rates of inheritance tax in the OECD, yet only 4% of estates end up paying it. The burden often falls on those who cannot take advantage of the loopholes and exemptions that are available to those with access to expensive tax advice.

We would reform inheritance tax to make it fairer, but let us be clear: a mini-Budget style approach to tax cuts is not the way to do it. There is a better alternative. If we want to help people who are being squeezed by the cost of living, the fairest and most effective approach is to cut income tax. We Liberal Democrats have done that before; when in power, we would do that again. In Government, we cut tax for millions of people, taking 3.4 million people out of income tax altogether. Today, we Liberal Democrats are committed to raising both the income tax personal allowance and the national insurance threshold to £15,000 over five years—[Interruption.] Conservative Members ask where we are going to find money for that—I will tell them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

I am happy to report that the black Labrador population of Suffolk is thriving.

SEERS Medical in Debenham sells medical equipment around the world. Such businesses are invaluable to our economy and society. They not only provide jobs, but pay their taxes, which supports critical public services. We need businesses to boost productivity and to supercharge social mobility.

For so many of my local businesses, there is an unquestionable sadness that the current Government seek to penalise them for wanting to keep a business in the family. That cannot be truer for families of farmers who have tended to land for generations, waking up early and dedicating unimaginable hours, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Now they are told that they have to give that up, because this Prime Minister does not have the temerity to get to grips with the welfare budget and because this Labour regime cannot bring itself to stand up to the civil service unions that want to work four days a week for more pay. Yes, everyone heard that right: this Government want to tax the farmers and the entrepreneurs who work seven days a week so that civil servants in London can work four days a week.

The Labour party was founded to protect workers’ rights, but workers in my constituency feel abandoned by this Government. The iniquity of this social and economic contract negates the utter lunacy that seems to govern the Government’s approach to our public finances. I would welcome anyone in this Chamber, or anyone in this country, making a reasonable argument that public spending in its current form, with interest rates at record levels and rising, is sustainable. We have a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 100%, with £3 trillion in debt outstanding. We borrowed more than £134 billion last year alone. As a percentage of GDP, we spend as much now as we did at the height of the global financial crisis when we were bailing out banks, and as much as we did during the mid-1970s. By complete coincidence, that was the last time we had a proper left-wing Government like this one in place.

How many warnings from the International Monetary Fund do we have to put up with until the Government suddenly take note and realise that they cannot borrow and spend their way out of a crisis? In June 2026, September 2026 and just earlier this week, international economists have said enough is enough.

[Noah Law]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

You cannot tax your way to prosperity—that is something that I, as a Conservative, believe. Not only do I believe it, but it has been demonstrated time and again in countries across the globe.

When this Government first entered office, under the previous Prime Minister, we were told that one of their central focuses would be to go for growth. We all know that Governments cannot conjure growth out of thin air. It is the Government’s job to create the right environment for businesses big and small to drive growth, but this Government spent their first period in office piling cost after cost on to British businesses, including through the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, delivering a regulatory burden that keeps growing.

Take pubs, for example, which have been some of the businesses hardest hit by this Government. Since 2023, we have seen nearly 700 pubs close. In my own constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have been lucky to retain the number of pubs that we have—that is through no inconsiderable effort by myself.

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Member care to recall how many pubs closed on the previous Conservative Government’s watch, and just how big a deficit we were trying to fill through some of the interventions to which he referred earlier?

[Peter Fortune]

Labour Members are proving once again that they are desperate to talk about the past because they have no plan for the future.

Talking about the pubs in my constituency, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of people employed by them. The British Beer & Pub Association estimates that in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have gone from around 1,150 people employed in pubs in 2023 to around 800 now. That reduction seems to have hit young people the hardest, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds employed in the industry down by 200—half the figure in 2023.

Nationally, we have seen total gross value added from pubs and breweries fall from £47 billion in 2023 to £30.8 billion, and the Government’s tax take fall from £17 billion to £3.2 billion. Higher taxation and regulation are strangling an industry and leaving the Government with less money in the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks to farmers far more than Labour Front-Bench Members ever do. Indeed, he knows that this is about fairness. We Conservatives believe in rewarding those who have done the right thing: those who have strived and who have saved.

There is further positive news from our plan, as highlighted by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. In October 2024, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in the interest rate on the late payment of taxes. The rate had been calculated on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%, but the Budget saw an increase in the surcharge to 4% above base, so the interest rate on late payment of tax is currently a usurious 7.75%. Asset-heavy, cash-light taxpayers such as farmers are particularly vulnerable to that change as it takes time to convert assets into a form that allows them to pay that balance.

Inheritance tax is due six months after death, after which interest is charged daily on unpaid tax. However, executors may struggle to meet the deadline because properties are illiquid assets that can take considerable time to sell, particularly when probate is required. Selling properties quickly may mean accepting a lower price, while waiting for a better offer can result in additional punitive interest charges. The probate process creates further difficulties as executors often need probate to sell inherited properties, yet generally inheritance tax must be paid before probate is granted.

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member is making a set of technical and important points. Does he not accept that for businesses of the size and scale he is talking about, whether family owned or not, succession planning and perhaps even life insurance are important tools that should be considered to mitigate some of the things he is describing? [Interruption.] I do not think that is unreasonable.

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is talking about adding yet more costs on to businesses. I have heard from farmers who tried inheritance planning but were told that the bank would not pass on the working overdraft to young members of the family. It is much more complicated than he pretends.

Although HMRC may allow payments in instalments over 10 years or grant credit in certain circumstances, interest can still accrue after six months. That leaves taxpayers with higher bills through no fault of their own. The Conservatives’ allowing family homes to be excluded from inheritance tax, plus the additional £1 million allowance, would restrict the effect of that pernicious interest.

Meanwhile, we need to see agriculture not as a dripping roast on which the Treasury may feast, but as a rural powerhouse helping to feed the nation. If this Government were serious about their mantra “food security is national security”, they would halt the family farm tax right now and stop turning the human drama of a death into a financial crisis for the living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

The Conservatives’ decision to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest tells us exactly where their priorities lie: not with the everyday working man or woman but with the very wealthiest in our society, and not with constituents such as mine but with the wealthiest 4% or so, whose estates are affected by inheritance tax.

The Conservatives’ proposal would allow couples to leave their children £1 million of wealth, on top of a potentially very large home, without paying a penny in tax. They claim we are the party of welfare, but what does that make them? Tax cuts for the wealthiest paid for by spending cuts that take our country’s public services backwards. They tried that for 14 years, and it left our country poorer, sicker and economically stagnant. It is clear that they have not learned their lesson. Arguing for the effective abolition of inheritance tax sends a different message to what could be a much more reasonable debate about, say, uprating the threshold in line with inflation.

[Chris Vince]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ argument would be far stronger if it was focused, as many of their speakers are, on family businesses and family farms? The motion talks about the abolition of all inheritance tax, including on estates. Surely that weakens their argument.

[Noah Law]

That is quite right. This is not pragmatic at all; this is complete ideology and returning to— [Interruption.] It is. It is pure ideology. The Conservatives are returning to their core comfort zone of defending only the very wealthiest at the expense of all the rest of us.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member from my neighbouring county for giving way. I think his constituents would be quite shocked at him accusing the Conservatives of being ideological. Where is the aspiration for someone in Austell and this Cornwall constituency to grow those family businesses and to expand their family farms? Ultimately, his constituency is incredibly similar to mine, and I am in no doubt that some of the properties there are incredibly expensive but the salaries are not high. I challenge him; his constituents will have heard him say that they are fine with that, and that he is just tackling us from a point of ideology.

[Noah Law]

I respect the point the hon. Member makes and fully respect what she says about the aspirations of those of us who grew up in rural areas where property prices are often inflated. But I will be honest: I know very few people from back home who have ever paid inheritance tax. I do not know these people. If she would like to correct me on that—

[Dr Johnson]

On the point of ideology, what I have tried to get from my interventions is an understanding on the Government Benches that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. If people do not start a business because it is not worth the bother, if they do not invest because it will be taken off them, and if they cannot pass a business on to their children and, as a result, it has to be sold and the jobs are lost, people do not have jobs and employment, and everyone is affected.

[Noah Law]

It is objectively untrue that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. It penalises, at best, 4% or 5% of people with the wealthiest estates. I understand the cultural arguments that the Conservatives are making about aspiration and all the rest of it—we should all strive to support that—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, this proposal is not pragmatic at all; this is bonkers.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to Winston Churchill. I often like to refer to Shakespeare, because I think that goes a little above that. Shakespeare said:

“no legacy is so rich as honesty.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate from the Opposition is dishonest? They left the finances of this country in a mess, and they have to be honest about it and face up to that.

[Noah Law]

We would do far better to have a pragmatic debate, as my hon. Friend suggests. Perhaps we should look at uprating the thresholds or bringing in more tax revenue through some of the means that the Treasury is exploring. I would be keen to hear in the Minister’s winding-up about progress on that.

This Government are already investing £1.7 billion in improving the efficiency of tax collection and cracking down on tax avoidance. That should yield an extra £7.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Are these not the kind of discussions we should be having, rather than just encouraging more and more tax avoidance by people who, quite frankly, can afford to pay their way? It should be clear to those on both sides of the House that the answer to the very richest avoiding taxes is to legislate to close those loopholes and not to cut their taxes, which is exactly what a would-be Tory Government are proposing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who set out a huge amount of what I will talk about, not least about the constant referral to the wealthy that we have heard in this debate. Frankly, it is offensive to any person out there who is working and, in many cases, not earning very much money, but saving a lot of it and working tirelessly to be able to buy a property, to invest in a business and to do the right thing.

Frankly, the one thing that I will take away from this debate is the massive generalisation that anyone we represent is somehow wealthy, and anyone Labour Members represent is somehow not. It is a complete fallacy, and it shows a complete disdain for working people. Indeed, we heard the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) imply that anyone who was not relying solely on the state pension was earning a lot, which is preposterous.

Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that many families will ever make. It involves decades of saving, mortgage repayments and sacrifices along the way. The Conservative pledge to abolish inheritance tax on the family home would ensure that families were not penalised for passing on the home that they had worked so hard to own, often at the expense of doing other things. We know full well that people on benefits are able to get all sorts of discounts. It is the hard-working families across the country who do not go to theme parks at discounted rates, because they are paying a mortgage or, indeed, saving for one in the first place.

We will also raise the general inheritance tax allowance to £500,000 per person, or £1 million for a married couple. Crucially, this increased allowance will also benefit those who are unmarried or do not have children. Currently, a single person has an inheritance tax limit of only £325,000, which I think is completely wrong. There are many single people out there who work hard, and who sometimes have money that they have themselves inherited and on which they have also paid tax at multiple points. I hear from single constituents on my patch who are just so frustrated at being expected, time and again, to pay tax in order to pay for everyone else. Our proposal would give them greater freedom to leave more of what they have earned to the people who matter most to them, whether that person is a sibling, a niece or nephew, or another loved one.

As I have said, this is not about the very wealthy who already use trusts and other mechanisms to protect their assets. This is about helping normal families who have seen the price of their family home shoot up over the years, tipping them over the threshold for inheritance tax through no fault of their own. Indeed, in my own Conservative constituency—the so-called wealthy area South West Devon—the Plymouth median salary is £36,500 pounds. Plymouth is generally seen as being quite poor, but in the West Devon and South Hams part of my constituency the median salary is between £26,500 and £30,000. These are hardly wealthy people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has rightly said, inheritance tax has

“become a tax for normal people who live on new build estates, not fancy people who have estates.”

Just 2.7% of homes were faced with an inheritance tax bill in 2009-10, but that could rise to 8.2% in 2029-30, according to research by Oxford Economics.

This issue is particularly relevant in the South Hams part of my constituency, where the average home costs £355,000, the third highest figure in the south-west. In Wembury, Brixton and Newton Ferrers, the median property sold for more than £360,000 in the last year, rising to more than £520,000 for detached homes. In Ivybridge, a property was recently sold for almost £420,000. Many of these properties were bought decades ago for considerably less, yet the basic inheritance tax threshold has remained frozen. Others have already mentioned the pension increase whereby pension funds will be included in inheritance tax calculations.

Scrapping inheritance tax on family homes is about strengthening the social contract, which is, in the great words of Edmund Burke, the indivisible bond between those who came before us, those who are here today, and those who will follow. Conservatives want to protect that partnership. We are backing parents who save responsibly and want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices that they have made.

[Noah Law]

The hon. Lady has referred to the indivisible bond between families. Does she not agree that that bond must also apply to the community and the public more generally, from generation to generation?

[Rebecca Smith]

I think that is called general taxation, and these people have paid that throughout their working lives. Why are we now targeting them at the point at which they die, or indeed inherit money? I just do not think that is a workable opinion, and I deeply disagree.

The Conservatives want to protect the social contract. We are backing parents who have saved responsibly, and who want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices they have made. As we have heard, that stands in stark contrast to Labour, which is widening the inheritance tax net ever further by sucking in family farms, pensions and family businesses. As Conservatives, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. Families who have done the right thing should be able to pass something on to the next generation.