Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Theresa Villiers (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No. 2) Bill.


Finance (No. 2) Bill

Yes, I shall explore that point in a moment. In a joint statement, the organisations Mind, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Parkinson’s Disease Society, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Law Society, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and the National Autistic Society said:"““We are not seeking favoured treatment, but to prevent vulnerable trust beneficiaries from incurring a tax penalty that they would not have incurred before Budget day. There are so many inconsistencies in the definition in section 89 that we firmly take the view that the legislation cannot go forward as currently drafted without causing severe prejudice to the interests of vulnerable trust beneficiaries, and discrimination between different classes of beneficiary, some of whom may qualify as a ““disabled person”” under the definition and some of whom will not.””" Turning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), the current section 89 definition covers two groups: people who, by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, are incapable of administering their property or managing their own affairs and people who are claiming attendance allowance or the highest or middle rate care component of disability living allowance. The Opposition seek to broaden both categories of the definition. In accordance with the representations made by Mind and other concerned groups, we propose to add a reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, so that it is sufficient if the beneficiary falls within the definition of incapacity contained in the Mental Health Act 1983 or the 2005 Act. The problem that we seek to address with the new clause and these amendments was highlighted by James Kessler, QC, when he said:"““The definition of disabled is extremely narrow…the large majority of mentally vulnerable people will not be included. No relief is given for those with partial mental capacity… No relief is available to those who are aged or infirm or incapacitated whose disability is less than the grievous state required for relief.””"


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
448 c666 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Death Conservation Combined heat and power Annuities Dependants Environment protection Electricity generation Energy supply Divorce Excise duties Fuels Inheritance tax Income Mental illness Motor vehicles Oil Pollution Pensions Life insurance Petrol Scotland Religion Separation Taxation VAT Trusts Stamp duties Rural areas
Legislation
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk