Inheritance Tax
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: you tax something to stop it happening, and if you tax jobs, they stop being created.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
The hon. Gentleman is being too generous: he plays cricket; I sort of stand there and get hit by the ball. One has to look at taxation in the round, and if we look at the impact of things like the national insurance costs, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult for businesses to survive on the high street. If we want to see economic growth that will strengthen our local communities, strengthen high streets and deliver real opportunities for young people, we need a fundamental change in approach. That fundamentally different approach was outlined perfectly by the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the shadow Cabinet in Birmingham last week. It is absolutely right that people should be able to leave assets such as family farms, businesses and homes to their direct descendants without being taxed. I warmly welcome our plans to abolish inheritance tax on family homes, rewarding a lifetime of hard work instead of punishing those who have scrimped and saved their whole life. Halving employer national insurance for those aged 21 to 24 is exactly the bold policy we need to get young people back into work. Bill Perera, a McDonald’s franchisee in my constituency, has highlighted the employer national insurance increase as the very reason he is struggling to employ more young people. Halving it will greatly assist the hospitality and leisure businesses that give many people their first job. We know the need to tackle the unsustainable welfare budget, and our savings plan will save £71 billion by doing exactly that. This will allow us to pay for our commitments, such as 3% on defence spending by 2030, while reducing the deficit by £35.5 billion against 2029-30 forecasts. The distinction between the Opposition and the Government could not be clearer. We are setting out a comprehensive plan to get our country back to work, grow the economy and make our communities stronger. The Government have no real plan, and they have floundered in their first few years in office and failed to deliver. The next Conservative Government will deliver. They will deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for her leadership campaign. If the Liberal Democrats got into government and put these policies forward, does she believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would be there to do it?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
In the hon. Lady’s view, what would be the greatest thing to increase growth and business growth in this country? Would it be rejoining the European Union, or would it be halving national insurance contributions by businesses for people aged 18 to 24?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government’s pledge to reduce energy bills. When he stood at the election, did he exalt the policy of reducing energy bills by £300 that was put forward by the former Prime Minister? Now that that has been reduced to £45, has he apologised for the bit that he has not delivered on?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
Where is the fairness in rightly reducing an earning couple’s tax bill over time so that they can accrue capital and buy a house, only for it to be taxed when they want to leave it to their children?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
If it is okay with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to approach this debate in two sections. First, let me paint a picture of the reality faced by residents in my constituency. I am blessed to represent a constituency that has everything—yes, rural communities made up of farms large and small, but also towns populated with small and medium-sized independent businesses that hon. Members should visit, such as Simpson’s Sweets and Bulstrodes of Framlingham, Luxmoore of Framsden, Buckle Shipping of Blakenham, the Lion pub of Debenham and Milsoms of Kesgrave. Many of those businesses are family owned and run, and many of those family businesses are made up of parents working with children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters and even grandchildren. There is a palpable love and passion among family members working for something that their parents, uncles and grandparents built. There is care for customers and a profound camaraderie among team members that is so hard to replicate. These businesses are not just great places to work; they provide world-beating products and services. Dingley Dell in my constituency sells pork products—[Interruption.] It is a real place. It sells products to the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
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.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
I will not. The Government have a chance to U-turn. It is a move with which they are now all too familiar. They should show some gumption and cut welfare, grow a backbone and not let the slackers in Whitehall get away with a four-day working week. The Government should cut taxes on the productive half of our economy, allowing businesses and families to pass the homes that they worked and saved for on to their children. The Prime Minister loves a football analogy. This is the biggest open goal he will ever face in his career. He should do the right thing: cut taxes, cut spending and support businesses.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Unfortunately, the Front Bench speeches went on for quite some time, so Back Benchers will begin with a six-minute speaking limit. I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also to respect the amount of time that we have for the debate.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Given that he is so experienced, I assume that, within protocol, he has also mentioned to the Prime Minister that he was going to raise this matter—or I will accept that as something he will be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers’ speeches and answers are not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point; I am sure that they will do everything they can to make sure that it gets to where it should, and that the appropriate action is taken. The right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the Clerks if needed.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. We do not talk about cases where people have just been charged or have not been sentenced, because it is sub judice. I ask the shadow Home Secretary to be incredibly careful with the words he uses in his closing speech.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Order. If somebody is fighting a case, it is still a live case. Can I ask the shadow Home Secretary to revisit his words before he speaks them out loud in the Chamber?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for the words about Sir David Amess. We on this side of the House miss him dearly, as do his family. He was a fellow Essex MP and a very good friend to me and to so many across this House, and I know that he is still very much loved by his constituents in Southend. The Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks: tying himself in knots explaining why national security should not come at the expense of social security, and bumbling into a row—still ongoing—about Manchester City. I do not think that his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) will suffice—it does not sound like that one is going away. He also spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum when we all heard him say it. Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It sounds like the Prime Minister is digging in, but you cannot fight misinformation with misinformation. This is the first time I have ever heard the head of MI5 slap down a Prime Minister for doing Russia’s dirty work for them. Either the Prime Minister knew what he was doing on that podcast—trying to undermine the 2016 referendum—or he opened his mouth on a matter of national security and said the first thing that came into his head. Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of MI5 that talking up Russian interference was a mistake?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Still digging in—it was not me that MI5 was talking about. The fact is, this Prime Minister will say anything instead of dealing with the tough decisions that only he can take—like on Britain’s energy security. In July, he said that he would approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. What is he waiting for? If he had approved them back then, we would have British gas warming British homes this winter. Will he now—[Interruption.] It is true: all the gas from Jackdaw goes on to the British grid. Will he now stop faffing about and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw?
- Hansard source
Engagements
So much time wasting. This is a Government who approve importing oil from Russia and approve new drilling off the Falkland Islands but will not approve new drilling in the North sea. The truth is that the Prime Minister is delaying a decision on energy to avoid a row with his Back Benchers, just as he is avoiding another row on cutting welfare. The Times reports that 2 million people are being paid sickness benefits, and they may not even be sick. Billions of pounds are being paid to people who should not be getting that. The last time a Prime Minister tried to cut welfare, Labour MPs stopped him. They are still chuntering now—look at them. Is the Prime Minister afraid to cut benefits because he does not want a fight with his Back Benchers?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I did not ask the Prime Minister about the Milburn review, but, if he wants to talk about it, I spoke to Alan Milburn and he said that the review was due before the Budget. The Prime Minister has kicked it into the long grass. The Budget is in two weeks. Let me tell the Prime Minister what should be in it: cutting welfare to fund defence. In a BBC interview on Sunday, the Defence Secretary refused to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. People used to resign over this. I see that he is not here today—he is still not doing his job. That is the money that Britain needs to keep us safe. Now, the Prime Minister will not even tell us what his plan is for another year. Why will he not announce a date for 3% in this month’s Budget?
- Hansard source
Engagements
A month ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that it was time to engage in problem solving rather than point scoring. It seems that is another thing that he said without thinking. The Prime Minister wants to talk about defence, so let us talk about defence. The Conservatives are the only party that actually has a plan to get to 3% by 2030. I asked him about the Budget, and he said he is meeting President Zelensky. President Zelensky is not writing the Budget; he is. The last two Labour Budgets have been a total disaster. Yesterday I met a beauty salon owner who is struggling with the impact of Labour’s tax rises. She told me that she is dipping into her pension to pay the young people she employs. That is the brutal reality for tens of thousands of small business owners after just two years of Labour. The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising the biggest change in 40 years. Now Labour MPs are briefing journalists that they hope this Budget “does as little harm as possible”. Is he not too busy appeasing his MPs, excusing his own mistakes and avoiding difficult decisions to give the country the leadership it needs?
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
The hon. Lady makes some important points. We share a hospital trust. Many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay go to Broomfield hospital. Some of them go down to Basildon hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), as well as the Southend hospital in another neighbouring constituency. I want to pick up on that point around contingency planning, because Basildon hospital, which is part of the trust, is particularly bad for corridor care. It is very clear to me that it is a major issue that is really hammering people. I want to make a very brief point about that care.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Stuart. A constituent came to me who was handed a second-hand book on grief, with somebody else’s notes in it, after he had just lost his wife. It really struck me that, whether it is corridor care or that almost thoughtlessness, care is actually missing in parts of the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
The merger of Basildon, Broomfield and Southend hospitals six years ago has turned out to be an abject failure. That is not the fault of the patients, and it is certainly not the fault of the very hard-pressed staff; it is the fault of the management. We have seen endless revolving-door changes of management. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is now time for Clare Panniker, the east of England regional director of the NHS who was the first chief executive of the trust and, indeed, the cheerleader for the merger, to intervene and finally put this problem right once and for all?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
Every day, millions of hard-working people work, earn and contribute to our economy with the principal goal of providing for their children, both in the present and in the future. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip. They are the pillars that allow a family to function, grow and thrive. As a former family business owner, I know just how valuable such opportunities can be. Today’s debate is important not simply because it is about business, but because it is about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives and careers. I spent my summer on my annual work experience tour in South West Hertfordshire, visiting local businesses to volunteer my time and understand how they operate, and to learn about the challenges they face. In Kings Langley, I went to Wayside farm to shadow Charlie, who has been running the farm for over 30 years. It is one of only two dairy farms remaining in Hertfordshire. I pulled pints behind the bar of the Unicorn in Abbots Langley, run by Debbie and Ady. Debbie started as an employee, learning all about the pub before taking over. This is exactly the sort of entrepreneurship we should be encouraging. I visited Unit VII in Rickmansworth, an artisan coffee shop owned by married couple Raman and Zarina, who also host community-focused events for my residents. Finally, I visited a car parts store in Kings Langley, a family-owned business that has grown so successfully that it has opened more stores and employed people across the country, helping the local economy in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of many other MPs in this Chamber. All those businesses repeated the same message: Labour’s harmful policies of increasing national insurance contributions, strict rules and regulations, and soaring energy costs mean that these small, independent businesses are now having to make difficult decisions about hiring and opening hours, when they should be supported and encouraged to grow their businesses. Labour has also reduced opportunities for young people to get their foot on the career ladder. Hospitality businesses in particular, which have historically relied on seasonal work and training young people up, can no longer afford to do so, meaning that our young people are going without the opportunities that should shape the rest of their lives. Growth happens when family businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this Government must work with businesses, not against them, and it is why the Conservatives would abolish the high rates of inheritance tax on the farms, homes and businesses that support economic growth and local communities. We would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, cut the red tape that prevents employers from recruiting young people, and introduce our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses. In conclusion, this debate is ultimately about opportunity. My residents should not work hard to provide for their children’s future, only to have that investment taken away to pay for an ever-increasing welfare bill. Every family business is a testament to community, to innovation and to shared prosperity, and these opportunities are worth protecting. I am incredibly proud of all the family-run businesses I have in South West Hertfordshire. I urge the Government to recognise the damage that they are doing to these family businesses, and to work tirelessly to ensure that my residents are not punished for a life of hard work.
- Hansard source
Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make it clear from the outset that while His Majesty’s Opposition do not object to every provision within these draft regulations, we cannot support them today. We have no quarrel with the purely technical updates to statutory terminology, nor do we oppose implementing the practical recommendations of Lord Murphy’s review to strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Giving the committee 10 working days rather than five to decide whether to hold an inquiry and clarifying that Northern Ireland Departments must comply with reasonable requests for information are sensible steps. However, statutory instruments are unamendable and the Government have chosen to package these modest Stormont reforms alongside regulation 2(6), a measure that points in the exact opposite constitutional direction by deleting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We oppose that approach for three fundamental reasons. First, we resist the use of Henry VIII powers to weaken governance and strip away primary legislation safeguards in this area. Section 15C was not a drafting oversight. When Parliament inserted it via section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, paragraph 325 of the explanatory notes stated explicitly that its purpose was to preclude a Minister of the Crown from using the written procedure to adopt Joint Committee decisions or recommendations. That lock was enacted by primary legislation to ensure that decisions are taken by a Minister in person, and that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. Using delegated powers in secondary legislation to reach back into an Act of Parliament and delete a deliberate accountability safeguard placed upon the Executive is a misuse of Henry VIII powers, and it is a particularly concerning precedent ahead of the Government’s EU reset Bill. Secondly, we strongly oppose removing the prohibition on the Joint Committee making decisions between meetings. We have great sympathy for the submission made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As he rightly exposed, paragraph 5.7 of the Government’s explanatory memorandum merely states the mechanical effect of deleting section 15C, without offering a single word of explanation as to why a safeguard that was once deemed essential is no longer required. Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation on removing that safeguard. Section 7 of the explanatory memorandum relies on the Murphy review as its consultation basis, yet Lord Murphy never recommended repealing section 15C. In fact, Lord Murphy noted that the Joint Committee meets at ministerial level alongside the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and he specifically recommended broadening the inclusion of stakeholders into these meetings to bring greater transparency and openness, not less. Under section 15C, formal Joint Committee meeting dates are announced well in advance, giving Parliament and the public a clear focal point to track decisions. By repealing section 15C, decisions and recommendations can be signed off on paper between meetings and slipped through at any time without notice. Only when pressed by the Scrutiny Committee in July did the Cabinet Office finally admit that the real driver behind this change is facilitating decision making between meetings for the point when future UK-EU agreements are in force.
- Hansard source
Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
My hon. Friend obviously has a long and strong record of promoting accountability in Government. That was not always to the pleasure of the Whips Office when we were in government, but it is particularly important that he continues that function when measures like this are being implemented through secondary legislation. If the Government want new governance mechanisms for future EU reset deals, they should make that case openly in primary legislation rather than stripping away statutory locks by stealth today. Thirdly, we need better oversight of the Windsor framework regulation-making process, not weaker scrutiny. As the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee highlighted, we are currently in the extraordinary position of not even having a complete public list of all the EU laws to which Northern Ireland is subject under dynamic alignment. That Committee rightly called on the Cabinet Office to establish a dedicated regulatory divergence unit to maintain an up-to-date public database on the National Archives website, alongside more detailed statements after joint meetings. Yet in its July responses to the Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet Office admitted that section 15C provides no statutory notification mechanism and that Westminster scrutiny relies on explanatory memorandums triggered by EU Council decisions establishing the EU’s position, not the UK’s position, which are then followed by publication on the gov.uk website after the fact. Relying on Brussels paperwork to alert the UK Parliament to decisions our own Ministers are taking by written correspondence, and publishing those decisions on gov.uk only after they have been signed, is no substitute for proper parliamentary oversight. Until the Government bring forward proper transparency and scrutiny over the Windsor framework regulation-making process and stop using inappropriate Henry VIII powers to dismantle primary legislation safeguards on Joint Committee decision making between meetings, His Majesty’s Opposition cannot support these regulations.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
My hon. Friend has listed some of the countries involved. Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan are the top five. Of course it is right to talk about national security, and we have heard a lot about that over the last few days, but today we are talking about personal security: the personal security of women, young girls and indeed young boys. Not everyone who comes here illegally would seek to attack, but too many do, and even when they go to prison we are not able to deport them because of the European convention on human rights. We need to leave the ECHR, we need to secure our borders, and we need to have a deterrent. We are a fair-minded country, but enough is enough.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Diesel is obviously very much in the public mind at the moment. Has my hon. Friend seen any sort of impact statement as to what the daily cost of the Bicester site would be, given the increase in diesel prices?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
That is exactly why we would abolish stamp duty when people buy their home as well.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
I want to support the family home, family farms and small businesses right across the United Kingdom, and I back this motion. It is a fundamental Conservative principle that, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “freedom flourishes” when people can rely on the security of owning their own home. In the same speech, she made a very important point relevant to this debate when she said that a home is more than a financial asset, as it is a “stake in the future” and something to be passed on to the next generation. That is why inheritance tax matters. As we have heard, when someone dies, 40% of their money and property is taken by the taxman, if the total value exceeds £325,000. By raising the threshold, hon. Members on all sides of this House accused us of cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society. I can tell them that the constituents I represent in Broxbourne are certainly not some of the wealthiest in our society. In fact, there are parts of my constituency that rank among the most deprived in the UK. Despite that, average house prices across Broxbourne are £433,000. Houses in my constituency that are just over the threshold include a two-bedroom maisonette in Cheshunt and a two-bedroom bungalow in Hoddesdon. Those properties are not mansions. Homeowners in Broxbourne have worked hard to live in those places, and it is not their fault that property values have risen by more than 10% in the last five years. On that trend, more and more ordinary families are being pulled into paying inheritance tax. Labour is making this worse by freezing the threshold until 2031. By then, one in six families will face paying an inheritance tax bill. I believe this is wrong. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out, we would completely abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the threshold to £1 million for a couple. We have a clear plan.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
If the hon. Member had been listening to my speech, he would know that this is not people’s fault. If someone works hard and buys a family home, they have no idea what the value of that family home is going to be when they die. That is why we are exempting the family home from inheritance tax.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a tax on aspiration.