5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   It is quite explicit under clause 4 that the reporting should include outcomes in respect of what is set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause 1(2)(b). That is where there is clearly, in my estimate, an omission of inequalities. I am quite confident that health and wellbeing are included within pregnancy or childbirth, the health and development needs of infants, and the relationship between parent or carer and infant. I am not convinced that the Bill includes powers to make regulations on inequalities, so if there were to be an amendment, in my estimate it would need to address that issue in clause 1.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(3), which states: “The Secretary of State may determine that different levels of provision are appropriate in different areas.” She makes the point very well that Ministers have to bear in mind exactly what she is drawing the Committee’s attention to.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I am confident that the needs of infants, parents and babies, from conception onwards, would clearly include healthy housing and all those provisions. In my view, that will be implicit in the Minister’s assessment of the needs. If we start being explicit about all these things, the danger is that we would have a very long Bill and a prolonged Report stage.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I thank members of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for tabling amendment 1, which not only enabled the debate we have had but allowed the Minister to make the commitment she has now given to work further on the issue it deals with. After all, achieving such debate and scrutiny of a Bill is one of the principal duties of a Bill Committee. We are all, as a Committee, of one objective, even if we may have detected some minor difference as to how it might best be achieved. I also thank the Minister and her officials for the work that has gone into preparing the Bill and getting it to this stage today, particularly the recent discussions we have had. I also thank the support of staff in my own office who have carried the burden of that. I ask all members of the Committee to put into their diaries Friday 29 January, when we will deal with the Bill’s remaining stages—that is certainly my estimate of when we will do so. I hope that there will not be a Division, but if there were to be it is vital that the Committee should be quorate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill to be reported, without amendment.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   Will the Minister take another intervention on the same point from me?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment. The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. [Interruption.] I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world. These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely iniquitous that family farms have to pay inheritance tax on their assets, and yet if those assets were owned by a foreign company or individual, no inheritance tax would be paid? Why do this Labour Government want to single out British-owned family farms?

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    If we want our children to have a better life than us, to enjoy a better standard of living than ourselves, to enjoy better healthcare and to live in a better environment, then it is necessary to grow our economy. Conservatives understand that Governments do not create growth. A wise Government will try to create the conditions for growth and then stand back and allow individuals, families, partnerships and businesses to do their best to work hard, provide goods and services that people want to buy, and thus improve the world we live in. Creating wealth is hard work. I do not suppose that many Government Members are aware of that, because so few of them have ever worked in the private sector. It is quite remarkable that the shadow Chancellor has more experience in the private sector—23 years, I believe—than the whole of the Cabinet put together. This Government often talk about supporting business, yet time and again they do the opposite: higher national insurance charges that make it more expensive to employ people; 350 pages of the un-Employment Rights Act to further drive up the cost of labour; plans for a tourist tax—eagerly embraced by the Liberal Democrats—that will place additional burdens on a tourism sector made up largely of family businesses. Instead of helping local enterprises flourish, this Government’s first instinct is to ask, “How much more can we tax them?” We know that because the Work and Pensions Secretary told us that his colleagues are always asking him to pay more benefits to more people. Conservatives understand that the drive, innovation and hard work of family farms and businesses do more to create jobs, train apprentices and sustain communities than Government ever could. My constituency in Bridgwater sits in the heart of rural Somerset; ours is overwhelmingly a small business economy. More than 99% of the businesses in Somerset employ fewer than 250 employees. Those businesses are rooted in the places they serve; they support local sports teams, support village events and provide opportunities for local people. For those of us representing rural communities, small-scale family businesses underpin our local economies. They grow our food, make up our high streets, support tourism and more. That makes the fact that the Government feel no remorse in penalising their hard work, in the name of subsidising those who avoid it, even more depressing. Conservatives are on the side of those who work hard, save, invest, and create jobs and wealth. We will reward those who do the right thing. That is why we will abolish inheritance tax on family homes, farms and businesses. We will restore fairness to a system that has neglected those who play by the rules. Because when a business passes from one generation to the next, we should help it grow and continue a legacy, not force it to sell assets to pay a tax bill.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    If the hon. Gentleman reads it, the motion does specifically refer to family businesses. It is about agricultural property relief and business property relief—they are agricultural and business assets that form part of an estate. We will reverse Labour’s family farm and family business taxes. The Conservatives believe that allowing families to retain and reinvest their assets supports growth, encourages long-term planning, and strengthens local communities. It will actively put money in pockets, rather than take out more. If we want a prosperous Britain, we must back the people who have invested their lives in the community, building businesses, farms and homes that can be passed to the next generation.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Shivani Raja

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society? Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters. As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same. I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for. In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns. I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office. All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    9. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    The Government have finally performed another U-turn, rightly retaining trial by jury following widespread concern in this House. However, the Government still intend to allow judge-only courts for complex cases, yet they have not defined what complex means. That risks mission creep and has attracted significant concern from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that this lack of clarity is still acceptable?

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    I worry that this Labour Government are living in some sort of parallel universe. I met one of my manufacturing businesses in Keighley recently, which employs nearly 250 people. It has already worked out that its business property relief liability over and above the £2.5 million threshold is about £1 million. The advice it received is either to sell plant or machinery to mitigate that liability imposed on it by this Government, or to sell shares in its business. Either way, people are losing control of their business, or losing productivity from having to sell plant or machinery, and that is the result of a choice that has been made by this Labour Government. How can the Minister sit there and describe those as fair choices to the bosses of that business, when up to 250 people are now likely to be exposed to the risk of losing their jobs in my constituency?

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    Like all Members of the House, I am sure, I do an incredible amount of outreach with many of the family businesses that we are lucky to represent as constituency MPs, from our manufacturers and engineers, to those in our garden centres and breweries, and our hoteliers and farmers. They are telling me constantly that, from the last two Budgets alone, business and operating businesses in this country is difficult. We have seen an increase in employer national insurance, an increase in the minimum wage, and everyone over and above that minimum wage wanting the increased differential. Business rates now apply much more strongly than they ever did under the previous Conservative Government. The Employment Rights Act 2025 effectively now makes it much more challenging for an employer to take on an individual and offer that young person an opportunity. My inbox—like, I am sure, those of many hon. Friends and probably of Labour Members—has been filled with emails from people representing those with disabilities or special educational needs, who are now struggling to get a job because of the Employment Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult. It is challenging. Then, of course, we have the additional issue of the changes to inheritance tax, which impact all family businesses. A huge amount of pressure was rightly put on the Government, initially to increase the threshold, but ultimately in wanting 100% relief for agricultural and business properties. We saw movement from the threshold of £1 million to £2.5 million, and we now have the bizarre scenario that for someone who is married, the threshold will be £5 million—the first time we have ever seen a differential under IHT. The reality of that scenario is stifled investment, because many manufacturing and engineering businesses in my constituency are now saying, “Rather than investing in growth as we wanted to do and had programmed in over the next five or 10 years, we are stopping that. We now have to think about mitigating a tax liability at 20% over and above the £2.5 million, which we were not programming into place.” Ultimately, that is having an impact on growth in my Keighley constituency.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because that was exactly the narrative that his farmers put to me when I was lucky enough to visit them in Norfolk late last week. If someone is running a family business, the rate of return on their capital might be 1%, but they are lucky if they are getting that. Therefore, there is no return, yet when a valuation of that farm is made on death—not just of the farmland; there might be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, growing crops, stocks in store, machinery and livestock—they are well above that threshold of £2.5 million or £5 million if they are married, and the farming business is then subject to a liability. That is tough, which is why I was so shocked when not one Liberal Democrat MP voted against the implementation of the fertiliser tax, which has made it much more difficult for those family farming businesses. Then there was the cliff edge in April 2026, when no real warning was given to many of those family businesses. A cruel cliff edge existed, and as a matter of fact—it gives me no pleasure to say this—lives have been lost as a result of the decisions that this Labour Government have made. There has been suicide recorded in coroner’s reports as a result of this Labour Government’s choices through the implementation of inheritance tax changes.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    That is absolutely right. It is good to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) in his place. I hope that he will intervene in the debate and make it clear that he is also advocating for this cruel tax to be scrapped, just as the Conservatives are doing. There is hope when at least one Labour Member is willing to be bold enough to stand up against this Labour Government.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    I also regret the fact that I am talking about that issue. However, many farming representatives, including those from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association, gave clear warnings to this Government that if the cliff edge associated with this tax became a reality in April 2026, there would be emotional consequences, such as anxiety. I regret that I have raised the matter, but unfortunately it is absolutely the case that suicide has taken place. There will be a moment of hope in two weeks’ time when the Budget comes before the House: the Government could bring in 100% relief of APR and business property relief again. I urge the Government to do so and to listen to those strong calls from the industry. The hon. Gentleman asks where I was during austerity. Well, I have been a Member of Parliament for only six and a bit years. Before that, I was not in this place making any of those decisions. There are also issues around the changes to the implementation of inheritance tax. The first payment of the tax will be due within six months of death, but the asset base will first have to be valued, so inevitably there will be challenges. The district valuers do not have the capacity to deal with the level of challenge that will come from those handling the probate valuations that will inevitably have to take place. It worries me that, as the IHT debate has taken place in the House over the past two years, hardly any Labour MPs have stood up and advocated for the manufacturing, engineering and hotelier businesses that, I suspect, employ many of their constituents, providing them with their salaries and with opportunities to continue in a working environment. That worries me because I feel that the narrative has been lost to Labour Members. We have got time before the Budget for that narrative to change, and I firmly stand with the Conservative position that 100% relief for APR and BPR must be put back in place, and I ask the Government to listen and do something about it.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Inheritance Tax

    Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s long-term mentor Lord Blunkett, who last month at the Countryside Alliance’s rural reset conference said that the Prime Minister should use his time in the premiership to change the inheritance tax on farms because that was a mistake that the Labour party had made?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Inheritance Tax

    I wonder whether the hon. Lady might like to comment on the fact that from next April pensions will be included in what is being described as “inherited wealth”. Does she agree that pensions are not inherited wealth, but money that has been earned and set aside by those doing the right thing? Now there will be a cost to ordinary families when they hand that money down.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Inheritance Tax

    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.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Inheritance Tax

    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.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Inheritance Tax

    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.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Conservatives opposed the Employment Rights Act at every stage of its legislative journey and remain steadfastly opposed to that Act, elements of which this code serves to implement. The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape: the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses. Even the Government’s own assessment of the Act admits that it will cost business billions. We are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture but an important one. Before turning to that, I will touch on the consultation that the Minister mentioned. Over 920 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with over 80% of those coming from employers and their representative organisations. On the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every 10 working days to once every five, 98% of the respondents disagreed. Some 97% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. When asked if the code adequately reflects digital communication in the workplace, 94% said no. On the question of whether the code adequately explains the role of the CAC, 96% said no. When asked if section D of the code provides sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. Finally, some 96% said that the code’s unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation on the code of practice is damning. On virtually every substantive question put to the consultation respondents, the overwhelming majority of them expressed concern or disagreement, or called for a significant revision. The Minister has said that the Government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access. That is welcome, but on the issues that matter most to small and medium-sized businesses, the Government have noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force the code through against that advice. On the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister would outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored. Will the Minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs that employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents—57%—were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. Those are not large corporations with dedicated human resources and legal teams. For many businesses the code will put serious demands on time and limited resources. On unfair practice complaints, the code makes significant shifts. The CAC will now be able to uphold unfair practice complaints without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. We recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling, but does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot risks opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? Will the Minister outline if any safeguards are in place to prevent that? Another significant issue is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice. In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice and about the uncertainty that lack creates. The Government’s response stated that it was not appropriate to include examples in the code because it is the CAC’s role to make judgments on a case-by-case basis. Surely some basic examples could be provided to employers. Will the Minister outline now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights that protect workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ them. The code of practice fails to do that. It creates even more uncertainty for businesses and makes employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already made it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions, but I am afraid that we cannot support this code of practice.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Engagements

    It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    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.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    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.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: you tax something to stop it happening, and if you tax jobs, they stop being created.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    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
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    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
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    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
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    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
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    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
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    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