Proceeding contribution from Brooks Newmark (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
I will try to be brief and, rather than rehashing the points that we made in Committee, I merely wish to seek clarification from the Paymaster General on several points that she made, particularly with respect to amendment No. 5. In Committee, she admitted:"““For people who find it difficult or impossible to cope with the demands of owning assets outright, a trust will often be the most practical way for substantial assets to be held.””" However, what about people who find it difficult or impossible to cope with the demand of owning assets because of drugs, alcohol or gambling—the very point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers)? The Paymaster General made three technical and non-substantive objections to amendment No. 5, which deals with the definition of disability—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). The first was that the new definition would conflict with trusts already in existence. The second was that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not yet in force. The third was that it applies only to England and Wales. Can the Paymaster General confirm whether she objects to the wider definition of vulnerability itself, or is she merely shying away from the technical difficulties? The Paymaster General said:"““While I sympathise with the desire to keep the tax code up to date with developments in non-tax legislation, I do not consider that those particular changes would really improve matters.””" Is she acknowledging that matters need improving? If so, how does the legislation improve the situation faced by vulnerable people? The Paymaster General further said:"““I can see the desired effect of the changes proposed by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the route she suggests would be a difficult one to take at this point.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 June 2006; c. 613-15.]" If the Paymaster General can see the desired effect, why can she not see another route? I look forward to her response to those questions.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c689-90
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:25:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334706
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334706
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334706