Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. I ask them please to use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 63 Tax to be charged on certain pension interests Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 64 to 68 stand part. New clause 18—Review of the effect of sections 63 to 68— “(1) HM Treasury must carry out a review of the effect of sections 63 to 68 of this Act (Pension interests). (2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of— (a) the impact of those sections on individuals’ pension savings and beneficiaries, including on estate values and inheritance tax liabilities, (b) the administrative effects on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and HM Revenue and Customs, and (c) any behavioural effects on how pensions are used during life and on death. (3) HM Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1) no later than six months after the date on which sections 63 to 68 come into force.” This new clause would require HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of Clauses 63 to 68 of the Bill, which introduce inheritance tax charges on unused pension funds and death benefits, including their impacts on individuals, administrators, and behaviour, and to publish the findings to Parliament. New clause 19—Report on the impact of inheritance tax liability on personal representatives in relation to pension assets— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of the changes to inheritance tax treatment of pension assets on personal representatives of deceased persons made under this Act. (2) The report must consider— (a) the legal obligations of personal representatives to collect the assets of an estate, settle all liabilities (including inheritance tax), and distribute the estate to beneficiaries, (b) the extent to which personal representatives may be personally liable for inheritance tax due on assets, including pension funds, which do not form part of the estate and do not come into their possession, (c) any risk of increased litigation arising from the imposition of personal liability on personal representatives in respect of inheritance tax due on pension assets, (d) the impact of any such liability on the willingness of personal representatives, particularly those who are not beneficiaries of the estate, to distribute estate assets promptly, (e) any practical difficulties faced by personal representatives where pension assets, lifetime gifts, or other chargeable assets are discovered after initial inheritance tax calculations have been completed, including the requirement to recalculate inheritance tax liabilities and re-apportion the nil rate band, (f) any administrative and timing challenges associated with identifying multiple pension arrangements, particularly where a deceased person held several pension funds arising from different employments, and (g) whether the existing six-month timeframe for inheritance tax reporting and payment adequately reflects those practical difficulties. (3) The report must assess whether the current framework operates fairly and proportionately for personal representatives and whether legislative or administrative changes are necessary to reduce uncertainty, delay, or unintended personal liability.” This new clause requires the Government to report on the impact of inheritance tax rules on personal representatives, including personal liability for tax on pension assets outside the estate and the practical difficulties of identifying and valuing multiple pension arrangements within existing time limits. New clause 20—Administration of inherited pension pots— “(1) HM Revenue and Customs must review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots. (2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to ensure that— (a) inheritance tax and related tax checks do not cause unreasonable delays in the payment of pension death benefits to beneficiaries, and (b) bereaved families are able to receive pension benefits within a reasonable period following a member’s death. (3) In carrying out the review, HM Revenue and Customs must have regard to— (a) the cumulative administrative burden placed on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and beneficiaries, (b) the interaction between inheritance tax reporting, clearance processes, and pension scheme payment rules, and (c) any evidence of prolonged delays in the payment of inherited pension benefits. (4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish the outcome of the review, including any proposed changes to its processes or guidance, within 12 months of the passing of this Act.” This new clause would require the Government to address delays in the payment of inherited pension pots by reviewing HMRC’s tax administration processes, with the aim of preventing prolonged waiting periods for bereaved families. New clause 22—Statement on inheritance tax on pension interests— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the charging of inheritance tax on pension interests made under sections 63 to 68 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include analysis of the impact on— (a) pension saving levels, (b) household saving decisions, and (d) personal representatives.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement on the effects charging inheritance tax on pension interests on pension saving levels, household saving decisions and personal representatives. New clause 23—Consultation on changes to inheritance tax on pensions interests— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 6 April 2027, undertake a consultation on the potential impacts of the changes made by sections 63 to 67. (2) The consultation made under subsection (1) must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. (3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report summarising the responses to the consultation.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to consult on the potential impacts of the changes made by sections 63 to 67. The consultation must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. A report summarising the responses to the consultation must be laid before the House of Commons. New clause 24—HMRC guidance on inheritance tax on pension interests— “(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68. (2) HMRC must establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. (3) The guidance published under subsection (1) must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.” This new clause would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68 and establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. The guidance must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 84 and 85 stand part. Schedule 13. New clause 21—Review of the impact of sections 83 and 84: free bets and freeplays— “The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the impact of implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act in respect of the treatment of free bets and freeplays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets.” New clause 25—Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on— (a) sports and horseracing, (b) the number of high street betting shops, (c) the gambling black market, (d) the employment rate, and (e) the public finances.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Order. It might be helpful to explain that interventions are not allowed from the Opposition Front Bench, so the hon. Member will not take the intervention.
This is a complete farce, to be quite honest. We have seen reports in the media that there will be a secret room less than 1 metre away from sensitive cabling, and that since 2018, the Chinese authorities have been cutting off utilities to the UK embassy in China. National security should surely trump the planning system. This is a decision that should be taken by the Prime Minister in Downing Street—it should be a very quick and resolute no. If the Government are not in a position to do that, the framework needs to be changed. If necessary, the Government need to come before Parliament to do that, where they will find a very warm reception.
I completely understand that the Government will want to move business around given the circumstances they are under. However, as the Backbench Business Committee will be meeting this afternoon, will the Leader of the House update the House on whether we will be allocated Thursday 22 January for debates—hopefully we will decide that this afternoon—as well as 29 January? On Monday, the Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill will not be debated. From a personal perspective, as I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on holocaust memorial, it would be helpful to know when those amendments will be debated so that we can be ready for the discussion.
Right now, peaceful protesters who are unarmed are being gunned down on the streets not just of Tehran, but of every city and town in Iran. They are being hunted down to hospitals if they are injured, or hunted down to where they live. The difference between 2022 and now is that this is a nationwide protest calling for regime change. What people desperately want to hear—I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement—is not more words, but action. We are told repeatedly that the Home Office and the Foreign Office cannot agree on proscription of the IRGC, but could the Foreign Secretary go away, speak to the Home Secretary and get that organised now as a demonstration that we will not tolerate this, and that we will stand four-square behind those brave people of Iran who just want liberty and freedom?
Constituents of mine have been reporting that they have been directed to hospital for regular blood tests, rather than having them at their GP surgery. Will the Secretary of State outline how he will ensure that blood tests are done in a community setting, which surely must be much better value for the taxpayer and much more convenient for patients?
London is a critical global financial centre; we all rely on it, as do all of our constituents. Does the Minister recognise the very serious risk that approving this Chinese super-embassy could, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, pave the way for economic war—not just on our country, but on the western world, including by undermining the security of critical data travelling under the site to and from the City of London?
Mr Speaker, I am not ashamed to say that I have had a finger up my bum—not like that! In all seriousness, as a black man in the target age range, and with a family history, I am a keen advocate for prostate cancer screening. One of my constituents has been told by his GP surgery that, as there is no national screening programme for opportunistic testing, they follow national guidance and patients cannot request a screening without GP authorisation. What advice does the Secretary of State have for those of my constituents who are struggling to get screening for prostate cancer? I say a big thank you to the team at Kingston hospital for their swift action in moving my dad from active surveillance to treatment—he raves about them.
We seem to be in the Chamber every three weeks to address espionage and security concerns with regards to China, be it spying, hacking, or the Government’s failure to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. China is not an ally, and it features as a security threat in our own security strategy. The Chinese previously stated that they would not resubmit their application after it was rejected unless they were given assurances that it would be approved. To that end, what assurances have been given to China; what are we expecting as a quid pro quo with regards to the rebuilding of our own embassy in Beijing; and what concerns have been raised by our Five Eyes partners, specifically the US?
8. When he plans to publish the NHS 10-year workforce plan.
I have been contacted by concerned doctors in Chester South and Eddisbury who, after five or six years at medical school and a further two years of foundation training, are now struggling to secure specialty posts and are being forced to consider leaving the NHS altogether. While I will reserve judgment on the medical training Bill to be presented later today until I have seen it in full, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally treating this issue with the urgency it deserves. Can the Minister set out how this legislation will be accompanied by a credible plan to expand training numbers, so that the number of places is sufficient to meet the NHS’s short, medium and long-term workforce needs?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the release of unredacted plans for the proposed Chinese embassy.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing to get a technocratic history lesson rather than an answer to the meaningful question. Two hundred and eight secret rooms and a hidden chamber, just 1 metre from cables serving the City of London and the British people—that is what the unredacted plans tell us the Chinese Communist party has planned for its new embassy if the Government give it the go-ahead. Indeed, we now know that it plans to demolish the wall between the cables and the embassy—cables on which our economy is dependent; cables carrying millions of British people’s emails and financial data, and access that would give the Chinese Communist party a launchpad for economic warfare against our nation. The Home Office and the Foreign Office say that security concerns have been “addressed”, so I put this to the Minister: had any Minister seen the unredacted plans before The Telegraph uncovered them? If not, why not? Was Parliament misled when we were told that all documents were publicly available? Is it true that in December a briefing was given to our Five Eyes partners on these risks? Does the Minister really have no concerns at all over plans to install heavy ventilation equipment parallel to those cables? What is that for? If the Government are as shocked as we are today, have Ministers already called in the Chinese ambassador to explain those secret rooms? If not, why not? The embassy would create a daily headache for our security services. What confidence can we have that the CCP’s technological capabilities can be contained for a decade, let alone 10? I have consistently asked the Government to require the Chinese to pay for any re-routing of cables if they are to give this go-ahead, so will the Government commit to that today? We understand that the Prime Minister is planning to visit Beijing this month. Is it true that the embassy will be approved this week? That the Prime Minister plans to reward the Communist party, which is holding a British national hostage and torturing him in confinement, and which put spies at the heart of our democracy, is bad enough, but to turn up with a gift in hand, begging for handouts, beggars belief. Labour promised a new relationship with China, yet UK goods exports are down 23%. Surrendering our security for Chinese trade was always a bad policy, but surrendering our security while exports plummet is, frankly, insanity. The Government can claim today they had no idea about the secret rooms, and we will take them at their word, but they cannot now say that they have no power to protect us. We must protect our economy, protect the British people, and deny the Chinese Communist party its embassy.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With due respect to the Minister, I submitted this urgent question as the shadow National Security Minister for the Security Minister in the Home Office to answer. How do we in this House get answers on the focus that we have? All questions bar two were on national security, not on planning. The more than capable and diligent Security Minister was forced to sit on the Front Bench, silenced, while his colleague attempted to answer those questions that should have been allowed to be put to him.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for very long, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate, which has largely been conducted in a very civil manner and has aired some very interesting positions. The position of the Conservative party is that we are very much open to supporting political parties in Northern Ireland in reforming their institutions, but we stand by the principles of the 1998 agreement, in that we think that ideally any change must come from Northern Ireland itself.
It is dangerous that the hon. Lady encourages me to hurry through my speech to get to the point that she has raised but, given that my speech is highly flexible, I will try.
Five minutes flexible. We very much hope that, as the institutions in Northern Ireland mature—they are coming up to 28 years old—we will have greater opportunity for a system in which collapse, which is never desirable, is not possible. In any functioning Parliament around the world, it should not be in the hands of one party to bring that process to a close. I intend to take the remarks of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about the home counties in the spirit in which they were uttered, but Northern Ireland, although it is as much a part of the United Kingdom as the home counties, is not the home counties. The home counties do not have the same recent political history as Northern Ireland, and the 1998 agreement was set up to reflect that. However, one of the things that binds everyone in this room together is that we genuinely all want the best for the people of Northern Ireland. We may have different ideas about how that can be done, but I think that that, as a motivating force, will ultimately enable a position in which stronger institutions are capable of delivering for people, whatever community they come from. Several Members have raised the point that people in Northern Ireland are frustrated with their public services lagging behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom; we have health waiting lists now far longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and court delays. I should put on record my deep concern about the current barristers’ strike; I worry very much about what backlogs will emerge from that. Ultimately, we must nurture a world in which there is the tough political negotiation and the ability for compromise that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) described. We can imagine him as Finance Minister, being able to have those tough conversations and get to a conclusion; that is ultimately what we all want. If there are things programmed into the current institutions that are preventing those sorts of conversations from happening now—conversations that happened years ago—we should certainly look at them. I have not heard it before, so I was intrigued by the suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that the Northern Ireland Office should, essentially, run things and then be interrogated by the Assembly Members in Stormont. I think the existing—and any aspirant—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be utterly terrified of that prospect, but I have no doubt that it would provide a high level of scrutiny, because it would be possible for all political parties to unite against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Probably the most pertinent subject—raised by several Members—at the kernel of this problem is majoritarianism. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley was quite right to say that those who are non-affiliated should be considered in that argument. In recent months we have seen, in the way Belfast city is being run, the threat of majoritarianism. Sometimes, when one community has complete control over a council, it starts to do things that will deliberately antagonise another community. That style of politics is to be resisted and avoided. I hope that the combined good sense of the people in this room will ultimately lead us to a position where we have more effective political institutions in Northern Ireland, which enable the people there to get the services that they so richly deserve. I am sure it is possible. I look forward to working with everyone here over the coming years to see what possibilities exist.
Vital services such as X-rays and scans have been removed from the Oak Park community clinic in my constituency without any prior warning or consultation from the ICB. Will the Secretary of State meet with me to discuss how we can restore those services locally so that my constituents do not have to travel to Portsmouth?
When the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said that residents of Birmingham do matter when it comes to the bin strikes, I agree with her—but so do neighbouring constituencies, where we often get the blight of additional fly-tipping as well as having constituents who work at the council. Will she personally undertake not just to get people round the table, but to get this sorted out once and for all?
Does my hon. Friend agree that what Labour promised before the election, to people from farmers to publicans, has been completely betrayed? Almost 2,000 of my constituents in South Shropshire have signed this petition because they believe that the Government have failed and betrayed the British people.
I have made clear my views on the authoritarian approach of digital ID. Many constituents in South Shropshire would be excluded because of remote connectivity. Does my hon. Friend see that as a major issue?
The hon. Member spoke about the Labour Rural Research Group. Will it stand with the Opposition in rejecting Ukrainian eggs coming into the UK and undercutting British farmers?
The Minister said that he welcomed the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but he did not answer either; he did not tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published this financial year and he did not speak to the critical nature of a decision before going into the next financial year. He has explained missing multiple deadlines by simply refusing to give any further deadlines. Does he accept that this is a choice of this Government, without blaming the previous Government? If this Government can find additional funding for welfare, they could find additional funding to meet this contract.
The Minister knows that I have a high regard for his commitment and integrity, and that I have pressed successive Governments for more defence investment, so leaving aside the party politics, will he confirm whether or not the Government accept what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has estimated, which is that, if this contract is not concluded successfully by March, then it will be too late to secure the future of Yeovil as a helicopter centre of excellence?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in responding to a threat of this magnitude, a graduated response is required, and is she tentatively encouraged by the fact that X has decided to say that users cannot be anonymous in doing that sort of mischief? [Interruption.] Wait for it. I do not think X is taking that step out of the goodness of its heart. [Interruption.] Please do not shout me down. I think that X is taking that step because it is afraid of the sanctions that will come next. Should the Minister not be encouraging Ofcom to impose the appropriate level of sanctions, and to threaten to move to the next stage, so the big tech companies know that if they persist, they will be fined again and again and, ultimately, stopped from broadcasting? In taking that action, X has blinked, but the pressure must be ramped up in a graduated way.
I am very impressed by the Minister’s opening speech and his lightness of touch, but can he explain to the Committee how he reconciles the litany of good effects with the number of U-turns carried out since the Budget was put forward?
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.
I am sure we all agree that we cannot have sustainable communities if we do not have sustainable high streets. Would the Secretary of State agree that a fourfold increase in business rates over this Parliament does not make high-street businesses sustainable?
So many words, yet no answer. I asked the Secretary of State specifically about a fourfold increase, like the one that the White Lion on Streatham High Road in his constituency faces. We are talking about a 400% increase, even after transitional relief, from £3,000 a year to £12,000 a year. Will he urge the Chancellor to scrap business rates for businesses like the White Lion on Streatham High Road, and other hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street?
“You lot”? Not me, thank you very much. I will not impose a time limit, but Members can see that quite a lot of people want to speak, so I am sure they will be considerate to colleagues and will focus on the petition.
Order. The hon. Member must withdraw that comment.
I thank you for a cerebral speech, which will probably do you no good at all.
I remind colleagues that this is a debate about a general election, so we want to keep it focused on that.