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.

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Noah Law Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I know that this legislation is fast-tracked, but the Minister did rattle through very rapidly. I will seek to follow her lead as best I can.

It is a pleasure to debate the Bill on Second Reading and its measures on increasing the electricity generator levy, increasing the mileage allowance and introducing the 12-month HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. We are broadly supportive of the measures. However, we must consider the wider context in which we are debating them. The energy price cap has today increased by 13%, inflation is well above target, economic inactivity is rising, we have high borrowing costs, taxes are at record levels and are set to go higher, and, sadly, growth is non-existent. Those things cannot all be blamed on the conflict in the middle east, so it is little wonder that this zombie Government are under pressure to show that they have a plan for energy costs, business costs and the strain on ordinary family finances.

Given the title of the Bill, people might expect ambitious measures in it to deliver cheaper energy for consumers and businesses, make our economy more competitive, and unwind the bills, levies and targets that are increasing costs, but there are not. Instead, this is a small package of measures with no serious plan to ease the burden.

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

The shadow Minister speaks of the need for ambition, but does he not agree that there is little that is more ambitious than breaking the link between the cost of gas and electricity, which so many of our constituents have called on us to do in recent months?

[James Wild]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, which I will come to shortly. I just note that when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero had the opportunity to really break that link, he backed away from doing so. This measure does so in a limited way, but it does not make the ambitious reforms that could have been made by the Energy Secretary.

The electricity generator levy—[Interruption.] I am sure the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), can intervene if he is allowed. The electricity generator levy was introduced by the previous Government in 2023 as a temporary windfall tax applying to revenue above the benchmark price. It was a short-term response to exceptional circumstances and is due to end in 2028. What do the Government propose? To increase the rate from 45% to 55% and to extend it beyond 2028, with no end date. This is another example of Ministers reaching for higher taxes while offering no certainty in return.

The Government say, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), that the increased rates will support the decoupling of gas prices by incentivising generators into voluntary wholesale contracts for difference, but while the new higher levy applies from today, those new contracts are yet to be seen, the proposed strike price is not known, the likelihood of generators accepting them is therefore unknown and in question, and the value for money for taxpayers is yet to be proven. Will the Energy Secretary still be in post to oversee the reforms? We all sincerely hope he will not be in the Treasury.

In the winding-up speech, will the Minister provide an update on when the consultation on the CfDs will be launched, when the first contracts are set to be awarded, and if that will be through an auction or an allocation round? The Government have said that their intention is to extend the levy beyond 2028, but with no clarity on when it will end. The Government do not know how long they want it to last and have said there will be further legislation on that point. The Exchequer Secretary, in the debate on the resolutions last week, said that this was something “the Government are considering”. That is hardly a robust approach when bringing legislation before the House. Indeed, it seems like a hasty measure to give the Chancellor something to announce.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee previously recommended that for fast-track legislation, sunset clauses should be the default presumption. An amendment to add one is outside the resolutions of this House, but we have tabled a new clause that would require the Government to come forward before the due end date in March 2028 to say whether they think the levy should continue.

There is an absence of any publicly available costings on the measures. That is true for all the measures, yet this House is being asked to approve an indefinite extension. When the levy was first introduced, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that it would raise £2.3 billion a year, but the out-turn in 2024-25 was only £700 million. That matters, because part of the rationale for the higher levy is to generate revenues to support businesses and households. What measures is the Minister proposing in that regard? Surely not the Thorpe Park VAT cut, because that is funded by changes to corporation tax. Can the Minister enlighten us on what other benefits the consumers—my constituents—are getting from the tax?

The levy needs to be seen in the context of the Government promising to reduce energy bills by £300—instead, bills have increased by around that amount. That is what happens when Governments do not have a plan. The Conservatives would cut bills for businesses and consumers through our cheaper energy plan, taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and legacy subsidies, and backing the North sea to get drilling.

The second measure on increasing mileage payments to 55p for 10,000 business miles is something that we support. It is right that those workers, including carers, who are using their own vehicles for work should not be left to absorb the rising cost. The measure is backdated to the start of the financial year. When winding up, can the Minister guarantee that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not pursue anyone for any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise have arisen on payments made before the legislation took effect?

The increase applies only to the first 10,000 miles. When we debated the resolution, the Minister said that the Government considered an increase in the 25p rate, but that it did not represent good value for money. If Ministers accepted that the 45p rate needed to be increased, can the Minister explain how they justify leaving the longer-distance rate untouched at 25p? As has been set out, this is the first increase for some time, which raises the question of how we can avoid such a long period between increases in future. I accept that indexation would be complicated, but what commitments will the Minister make to regularly review increases?

Mileage is an important part of motorists’ costs, but the bigger impact comes from fuel duty. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to scrap both the 15-year freeze and the 5p cut that the Conservatives put in place. It was only after pressure from the Opposition that the Chancellor made a U-turn. However, it was only a partial one, and those costs are going to start hitting from as soon as January. For the logistics sector, which pays £5.4 billion in fuel duty, a 1p increase per litre will increase costs by nearly £83 million. Perhaps the new Chancellor will recognise the folly of that approach and reverse the plans they inherit.

We welcome the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. That duty had been frozen since 2014 until Labour came into office. For a year from today, HGVs will pay just £1, which will be a significant saving for the sector. However, the Government must recognise the full scale of the pressures facing hauliers and accept responsibility for those they have added; the Chancellor did not have to increase business rates, transport taxes and fuel duty.

More than 95% of road haulage firms are small businesses with small margins, so any increase in costs is a challenge. The Government say that the measure will save £600 for a typical lorry, and £900 for the largest vehicles. At peak prices, filling a single HGV costs more than £1,000. Yes, the measure is helpful, but not markedly so.

Taken together, the measures reveal a Government reaching for short-term fixes while avoiding the harder questions. On the generator levy, they are demanding higher taxes without certainty or proper costings—all while displaying a lack of urgency on reforms to decouple energy prices. Mileage allowances are a partial change, and one that leaves high-mileage workers behind. The vehicle excise duty holiday is a temporary relief without a plan for what comes next.

The Conservatives welcome the measures, as far as they go. However, they have not been brought forward by choice; they have been forced by the consequences of the Chancellor’s decisions. Taxes remain at record highs, and are set to go higher, costs continue to rise, and growth has stalled. Against that backdrop, the measures offer very limited relief.

Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Gelderd]

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. This interaction between defence, regional connectivity, transport and what we are looking to achieve down in the south-west really needs cross-governmental consideration.

This goes beyond defence, with Cornwall reviving its mining heritage through the development of critical minerals, recognised through Labour’s Kernow industrial growth fund, supporting cleaner energy supplies and economic independence, and backing British business. Cornwall also has major international cultural and tourism value, from our historic landscapes and mythical legends to world-leading attractions, such as the Eden Project. Our food culture, from cream teas to Cornish pasties, has global appeal—something I have seen at first hand.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on Cornwall’s economic potential and particularly the role of critical minerals. Does she agree that in an ideal but not unimaginable world, we would have electric ferries, ideally powered by Cornish lithium batteries, which would reduce the operating costs of those ferries and therefore the subsidy effectively paid by Tamar bridge users to support that service?

[Anna Gelderd]

My hon. Friend’s intervention goes to the heart of this question: how do we move communities like ours into the future, taking advantage of cleaner, greener and cheaper sources of energy, and bringing down costs for local residents?

The Plymouth defence deal presents a real opportunity. The tolled crossings are enabling infrastructure and backing resilience. Addressing them alongside defence investment aligns local fairness with our national priorities. Such strengths deserve an infrastructure that enables growth, rather than one that holds it back.

Cornwall is modernising, our economy is evolving and our ambitions are forward-looking. That brings me to my first three points, which are focused on improving fairness and future-proofing the Tamar crossings. First, we need to devolve the necessary powers. Current legislation limits the ability of local authorities to reform tolling structures in line with modern use. Devolving those powers would enable local decisions aligned with our national objectives. Secondly, we need grant funding to support long-term reform. Removing or reducing tolls without replacement revenue risks shifting the burden on to local authorities and council tax payers. Grant funding would recognise the national benefit and avoid unintended consequences. Thirdly, we need debt relief linked to historical financing. Existing debt structures drive continued reliance on toll income and restrict future options. Addressing this legacy debt would allow the crossings to come into the 21st century.

On the wider picture of unlocking our potential, my fourth point is on safety and resilience of the A38. This is the main road through South East Cornwall. With continued action and investment following recent safety upgrades, we can ensure that the route is even more resilient. Fifthly, we must strengthen rail resilience and access through Dawlish. Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on that single, climate-vulnerable line. To ensure regional growth, we need a strategic rail plan and phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience programme. Finally, we must improve digital connectivity across South East Cornwall. Reliable, high-quality broadband and mobile coverage are needed throughout the area.

Together, the measures I suggest provide a credible route towards resolving a long-standing issue. I urge the Minister to engage with myself and with neighbouring colleagues, many of whom are here today, to recognise the role that the Tamar crossings play in regional connectivity in terms of national defence, food production and regional economic growth, and to work with local partners to deliver fair and modern reform. With those powers held locally, fair funding and a long-term vision, we can move at pace to fulfil the potential that we see through the infrastructure that we, on both sides of the Tamar, rely on day by day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the lack of National Highways funding for the bridge, but does he share my delight at the £220 million investment coming into Cornwall’s roads from national Government? We are seeing record-breaking investment in our roads, but that is not to detract from the point he makes about the lack of funding for the Tamar bridge.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and hopefully he and I can make the argument to the Minister and her colleagues that some of that money should go to the Tamar bridge.

There are certainly other road projects across Cornwall. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall spoke passionately about the A38, which my constituents frequently raise with me, and hopefully that is another project that can be funded from the large amount of money we are hearing is coming to Cornwall’s road network. There are also much-needed safety upgrades at Plusha in my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions, so I know she is aware of the upgrades to the Camelford relief road, which have been promised for many years.

As I have mentioned, I really hope that a devolution deal will now be forthcoming in which we see the equivalent of the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network, which is around £96 million a year. This evening, we have talked about making the Tamar toll crossing cheaper for local residents, or potentially removing the toll altogether at a cost of around £15 million a year. In their devolution deals, our Celtic cousins enjoy a budget equivalent to the amount of the road network they have in their nations, and that would leave plenty of money left over for the A30 upgrade that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall mentioned, and for lots of other upgrades across Cornwall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I want to make a few short points to expand on a couple of things that have been mentioned. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for securing this important debate.

As I have said to several Members, particularly from this part of the world, we are currently closer to Middlesbrough than to my constituency in Camborne. Indeed, when people in this country think about the south-west, they think of Bristol, which is closer to Manchester than to my constituency. That gives an idea of the scale of where we are.

When it comes to the important question of regional connectivity, I gently say to the Minister that, over the last 18 months, the Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish metals, Cornish lithium and, as we have heard, the Kernow industrial growth fund. To maximise the potential of that investment, it is essential that we have the transport infrastructure to support it, including in the Tamar crossing.

[Noah Law]

If we are taking a local growth approach, which I know is so important to our Government, surely a deal for the Tamar must be a crucial part of any devolution arrangement.

[Perran Moon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Tamar bridge should form part of our needed package of transport support, including mainline rail, upgrades to the A30 and, importantly, a complete review of the funding model for our one regional airport at Newquay, which needs to be considered in the round.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall spoke about car ownership in Cornwall. One of the gross distortions of the Westminster funding modelling is that we look at car ownership as an indicator of affluence. In Cornwall, it is quite the opposite. Our public transport systems are so poor that we have one of the highest car ownership rates in the country per capita. The reason is that many people in large swathes of Cornwall—particularly young people who need to get to college, or who need to develop the skills to work in some of the organisations I have mentioned—are completely housebound and isolated if they do not own a car. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it also contributes to the real problems of loneliness and lack of access to social groups, which is important for people’s mental health.

There are wide-ranging issues with the lack of connectivity across Cornwall. That is why it is so important, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned, that our devolution arrangement considers the implications of our remote coastal geography for business development, for young people and the skills they need, and for the social aspect as our population ages and more young people sadly leave Cornwall because they cannot find work, particularly driven by our acute housing crisis. We need a holistic strategy for the whole of Cornwall, and a very important part of that is the Tamar crossing.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his considered engagement with rural Labour MPs such as myself on this issue from the get-go. I also thank farmers—at least in my part of Cornwall—for their dignified engagement at what I know has been a difficult time. Does the Minister agree that where we have landed now strikes a much better balance, one that in relative terms favours small family farms compared with industrial concerns, institutional investors and those looking to use agricultural property as a means of avoiding tax?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement on this and a whole range of issues that affect rural communities in Cornwall—he is a strong advocate for his constituents. As he says, we have now come forward with a change in the APR and BPR thresholds to make sure we can protect those smaller family farms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the importance of productivity in the UK economy and our prospects for growth. As we know, the Office for Budget Responsibility reviewed the productivity impact of the previous Government’s record in office and found that the decisions they had taken over those 14 years meant that we had a £16 billion revenue hit to the public finances in the target year of the scorecard. We know that means that productivity has been downgraded as a result of decisions taken by the previous Government, but that gives us an opportunity—an opportunity to not be held back by the failures of the previous Government and to exceed those forecasts in future.

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

Cornish communities and small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chains of Cornwall’s most promising industries alike will have been delighted by the Chancellor’s announcement of the Kernow industrial growth fund in the recent Budget. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that those funds should be invested prudently and sustainably and that the proceeds should be recouped for the Cornish public’s coffers so they can be invested in future projects?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend and many of his neighbouring MPs are excellent advocates for Cornwall and for the benefits that Cornwall can bring to growth, both in the region and right across the country. I know that, in the Budget, the Chancellor was keen to support investment in future industries in Cornwall. For the local council to deliver that, we will work closely with it to make sure that money is well spent. The key thing for us is to ensure that we enable people in Cornwall to be part of the economic growth mission of this Government.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will come to the Dispatch Box and say that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. As the permanent secretary has set out, he places the utmost weight on Budget security. As I have said to several hon. and right hon. Members, the permanent secretary will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the real-world and market impacts we saw last week underscore the importance of following proper process with the OBR? We saw the evidence to the contrary just three years ago, when the then Government chose to ignore and bypass the OBR entirely, causing interest rates and mortgage costs to soar.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing a comparison between the way in which we as a Government interact with the OBR and the way in which the Liz Truss Government interacted with the OBR. We value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship that we have had with it over the past 16 months. That is in stark contrast with the previous Government, who sidelined the OBR and caused economic chaos for families across the country.

Taxes

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong.

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

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) makes a fair point. When raising public revenue, one should at least expect a decent return on that spend, whether it be a social return or otherwise. Does the right hon. Member not consider investing in our NHS to be such a decent return?

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman’s question identifies the core of the fallacy of his Government’s approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that money; it is about productivity. One of the Government’s many mistakes when they came to office was to splash out on pay rises for their trade union paymasters—14% for the railways drivers and 22% for the junior doctors—with not one string attached in terms of improved productivity. Therein lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he acknowledge the massive dead-weight loss caused by the strikes that were going on, unbelievably, under the previous Government, and the negative returns as a result of the previous Government’s actions?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that.

The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question.

Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [Interruption.] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We very much recognise the role that grassroots music venues play in constituencies right across our country. In our reforms, on which we will set out more detail at the Budget on 26 November, we will have permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises, with rateable values below £500,000.

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

Despite representing only around 9% of the UK’s economic output, the retail and hospitality sectors contribute around a third of all business rates paid. Does the Minister agree that high streets such as that in St Austell are public goods, and will he ensure that independent small businesses such as those he has described, which are central to our communities and economies, are no longer penalised by an arcane business rates system that undervalues their public contribution?

Taxes

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. When it comes to criticising this Government, it is always confusing whether to address those on the Front Bench or on the Back Benches, because they are never quite in the same place.

The big mistake that the Government made was to talk down the economy by going on about this confected black hole of £22 billion—something that the Office for Budget Responsibility has already debunked. The Government should stop using that number. They are the ones who created a black hole of some £6 billion, as I have just set out, and they should focus not on the black hole that they have invented, but on the one they have created. It is that black hole that is creating speculation across the summer about what will happen in autumn, damaging confidence and damaging businesses up and down the country.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of the actual size of the black hole left by the previous Government, it is a significantly larger number than the one he is talking about with respect to the welfare bill?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am not sure that I fully understood the point, but the hon. Gentleman seems at least to accept that there is a real black hole when it comes to this Government, of at least £6 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We are increasing transport investment by 1.9% in real terms after HS2 in every year of the spending review period. We are also extending the bus fare cap, which is particularly beneficial to rural areas.

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

T10.   I believe that redistribution should be core to everything that we do. It is core to the toughest decisions that we have had to make, and it is core to our efforts to achieve growth. Does the Chancellor agree that putting more pounds into the pockets of those with the lowest incomes is the best thing we can do to grow our economy?