Skip to main content

1-20 of 46 results for legtitle:"Non-contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

This Commons Library briefing paper considers the Government's previous proposals to reform probate fees by using a statutory power to charge fees set above cost recovery levels. These proposals have now been withdrawn

Type
Commons Briefing papers
Date
23 October 2019
Reference
CBP-7929

The Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018 went through Committee at the beginning of the year but has still not been subject to a vote here. Given that the proposed increase, for no additional work, from £215 to potentially £6,000 has been described as an abuse of the Lord Chancellor’s fee-levying powers, has he had second thoughts and decided to reject this iniquitous proposal?

Asked by
Tim Loughton (Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
9 July 2019
Reference
663 c151
House
House of Commons

I think the Government will be responding to that in due course.

Answered by
David Gauke (Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
9 July 2019
Reference
663 c151
House
House of Commons

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, and I wonder whether the portrait of Baroness Thatcher will be taken out of her room and put on display. Baroness Thatcher was a scientist, and we know that the science is right on climate change.

I thank the Leader...

Member
Valerie Vaz (Labour)
Type
Business questions
Date
2 May 2019
Reference
659 cc373-5
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady has made some rather unpleasant insinuations and accusations, but I am sure those are a matter for her. I can absolutely assure her that none of her insinuations has any merit to it, and it is a great shame that she chooses to accuse individuals of making...

Member
Andrea Leadsom (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
2 May 2019
Reference
659 cc374-6
House
House of Commons

I thank the Leader of the House for the Opposition day debate—I was going to point out that it is 150 days since we last had one, so I thank her for that. Will she supply us with a new list of ministerial responsibilities, as there have been a number...

Member
Valerie Vaz (Labour)
Type
Business questions
Date
11 April 2019
Reference
658 cc472-4
House
House of Commons

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I join her in wishing the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee a very happy birthday for Easter Sunday. Yesterday, I had the huge pleasure of attending Privy Council at Windsor castle. I can tell the House that Her Majesty is in...

Member
Andrea Leadsom (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 April 2019
Reference
658 c474
House
House of Commons

Motion to consider. Agreed to on division (9 to 8).

Lead member
Lucy Frazer
Answering member
Gloria De Piero
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on delegated legislation; Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings
Committee
Fourteenth Delegated Legislation Committee
Date
7 February 2019
House
House of Commons

Moved by

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1726
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in the subject of this debate, albeit a posthumous one. Ultimately, I will not be affected by the proposed changes, although my daughter and son will be. I ought perhaps also to refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant to the...

Member
Lord Beecham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 cc1729-1731
House
House of Lords

I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my having been a practising solicitor for more than 50 years. During that time I have dealt with many estates and made many applications to the probate registry. Looking around the Chamber, I see several of your Lordships who...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1733
House
House of Lords

Does the noble Lord accept that under the Government’s own guidance this will in fact be a tax, and that taxes should be raised in primary legislation and debated properly in both Houses of Parliament?

Member
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1733
House
House of Lords

No doubt the Minister will give a more considered reply, but I certainly do not regard it as a tax, particularly as it is described as, and

actually is, an enhanced fee. I have to admit that I was troubled by the original proposal, but the Government have listened to...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1733
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I too declare an interest, as a solicitor. I have not practised for some time, so I will not hand out cards suggesting that colleagues consult my old firm. It was the suggestion about advances made by solicitors from their office accounts that consolidated my interest in this...

Member
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1735
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said this afternoon. In my mind, this enhanced fee is a death tax, and I should like to take this opportunity to shine a light on what, in practical terms, this will mean for a particular

group of people—the people...

Member
Baroness Browning (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 cc1735-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, there are two aspects to this debate. There is the suggestion that these regulations are unconstitutional, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks,

has argued, and there is the argument as to whether this is fair, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord,...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 cc1736-7
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord has construed parts of Section 180; I think he has got it in front of him because he has been reading from it. My question about Section 180(3)(b) was addressed to the Minister,

but the House respects the noble Lord and I wonder whether he has views...

Member
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1737
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her observation. My answer to the noble Baroness is that, yes, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to have regard to,

“the competitiveness of the legal services market”,

but I understand that to apply only in a context where there is a competitive market. Of...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 c1738
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am not a lawyer. I have never applied for probate, I know nothing about the operation of the probate service and I come at this as a babe in the legal wood. But having read the paperwork that was put down and heard this afternoon’s discussion, I...

Member
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 cc1738-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I want to say just a little since the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has dealt with the law and I happen to agree with him. As your Lordships all know, I frequently disagreed with him in

a previous existence. Whenever I did, he appealed to a higher court...

Member
Lord Judge (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 December 2018
Reference
794 cc1740-1
House
House of Lords