Government urged not to weaken ‘Hillsborough Law' as MPs demand Bill is passed
Labour MP Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) warned Commons Leader Lucy Powell that the Public Authorities Accountability Bill, which will include the 'Hillsborough Law', should not be changed under pressure from Whitehall.
Mr Efford asked for it to be passed before the end of July.
Meanwhile his party colleague Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) asked for the Bill to be 'worthy of the name'.
The proposed law would require public bodies to have a duty of candour.
This means they would need to co-operate with official inquiries and tell the truth in the aftermath of major disasters – or face criminal sanctions.
A previous deadline set by Labour, that the Bill would be passed before the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster in April, has been missed.
The Government had said it needed more time to finalise the Bill.
A draft Bill has been criticised by campaigners, including the Hillsborough Law Now group, for not containing pledges previously made – including the duty of candour.
Speaking at business questions, Mr Efford said: 'Can (Ms Powell) tell me when we're likely to see the Public Authorities Accountability Bill, this introduces the Hillsborough Law on duty of candour.
'Are we likely to see it before the summer recess?
'And can I have an assurance that this is not being watered down at the request of the mandarins in the Cabinet Office?'
Ms Powell said: 'The Government remains focused, very much focused on fulfilling our commitment to the Hillsborough families and indeed many other families affected by injustices and scandals and bringing forward and enacting a Hillsborough Law which includes, of course, a duty of candour.
'I think the most important issue is to ensure that we get this legislation right, and that it does reflect the full range of concerns and experiences and does meet the expectations of the families.
'So we are working on that Bill at pace, but we will take whatever time is necessary to work collaboratively and get the legislation right.'
In March it was reported that a meeting between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and campaigners had been cancelled, with claims officials were attempting to have the contents of the Bill watered down.
It is understood concerns related to who the duty of candour would apply to.
Ninety-seven football fans died as a result of a crush at the FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough in Sheffield in 1989.
Mr Byrne told the Commons: 'The Prime Minister promised my city and all those affected by state cover-ups that the Hillsborough Law would be introduced before April 15 of this year – the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster.
'Almost two months have passed since the Prime Minister missed that deadline.
'This is particularly disappointing, since there is a draft Hillsborough Law ready to go, written by legal experts, endorsed by survivors, families, campaigners and proposed in Parliament by Andy Burnham.'
The Liverpool West Derby MP added that 'a failure to introduce a Hillsborough Law worthy of the name will be seen as a continuation of the betrayal of families and survivors of Hillsborough and all those affected by state cover-ups'.
Ms Powell said the Government was 'working at pace' and was co-operating with families and their representatives.
She said: 'At these times, we always remember those affected by the Hillsborough disaster but particularly the plight that they have faced ever since to fight for justice and fight for accountability.'
Ms Powell added: 'It's absolutely vital that we get this legislation right, that it is workable and watertight in legal terms, but it does meet the expectations and the needs of the families and all those affected.'
Meanwhile shadow commons leader Jesse Norman said Wednesday's spring statement by Rachel Reeves was an 'exercise in distraction and sleight of hand'.
He claimed the planned £14 billion of efficiency savings were 'illusionary' and said the measures included by the Chancellor would lead to £140 billion in borrowing.
Mr Norman said: 'The truth is plain, there will be a tax cut for the people of Mauritius.
'For the rest of us, the spending review was a gigantic speculative splurge of spending, presented by smoke and mirrors, which will end up – as it always does with Labour – with higher taxes, and British taxpayers will have to bear the impact.'
Ms Powell replied: 'As ever, their economic argument is utterly incoherent.
'On the one hand, they're saying we're spending too much, and on the other that we're not spending even more on police and defence.
'They're criticising us on growth, yet they don't want the investment to turbocharge our productivity and therefore our growth.
'We're the party with a plan.
'We've got a plan to renew Britain.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How Reeves's inheritance tax changes will affect families
The Autumn Budget might be two months away, but speculation over which taxes the Chancellor will increase has already begun. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her manifesto pledges to keep income tax, VAT and National Insurance at the same level, despite calls to 'substantially' increase taxes. What inheritance tax do people pay now? IHT has historically only affected the very wealthy. At the moment, just 4 per cent of estates pay it. That is set to rise because house prices are increasing, while the threshold over which people pay inheritance tax stays the same. IHT being levied on private pensions left to descendants from 2027 will drive a further increase. Since 2009, an individual has needed to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 if married or in a civil partnership, for beneficiaries to incur any death duties. This allowance is known as the nil-rate band. If you are married, own a property and leave your main home to direct descendants (children or grandchildren) you each get a further £175,000 allowance, known as the residence nil rate band. Collectively, it means a couple that meet this criteria could pass on £1million tax-free. The £325,000 nil rate band has been unchanged for 16 years, which means that rising property prices have dragged more people into paying IHT. Had it risen in line with inflation, it would be £585,996, meaning fewer people would be affected. How gifting can reduce inheritance tax There are some ways to minimise the amount of IHT paid, by gifting money to beneficiaries while you are still alive. You can gift £3,000 a year, and unlimited small gifts of up to £250, free from tax. However, if you die less than seven years after making the gift then you will start to pay IHT. This is levied on a sliding scale, from 8 per cent if gifts were made 6-7 years before death, to 40 per cent, if made within a year. This rule is designed to stop people making large gifts to family just before they die, in a bid to avoid IHT. Like the nil rate band, the gifting allowance has not changed since its introduction in 1986. If it had risen in line with inflation, it would be quadruple its current level at £12,297. As more people gift cash or assets to beneficiaries, they are more likely to fall foul of the rules. Why is Reeves looking at the gifting rules? Financial advisers tell This Is Money there has been a significant behaviour shift among their clients. More individuals are gifting their money to children and grandchildren to minimise their inheritance tax burden ahead of the pension changes in 2027. However, figures show that most people are not paying tax on their gifts, even if the giver has died within seven years. This is because you can actually gift far more than the £3,000 gifting allowance, so long as it doesn't breach the £325,000 nil rate band. These gifts will form part of your estate - but if it is below that threshold, you still won't pay tax. For example, if you have very few assets and you gift £10,000, and remain within the nil rate band, your estate will not pay tax on it. It means that it's very difficult to know how many people are gifting money tax-free, and likely why Reeves is eyeing changes to the rules. How much does the Treasury make from tax on gifts? A Freedom of Information request by This Is Money shows the number of families that are taxed on gifting was relatively low in the three years to 2021-22, the latest figures available. The figures have remained stable, with around 1,000 families being stung by IHT on their gifts each year, but some advisers suspect this doesn't paint the full picture. 'There will be people who gift and die within 7 years and then it's clawed back from the nil rate band, which don't appear in the figures,' says Lisa Caplan, director of advice and guidance at Charles Stanley. Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, also suspects 'people are gifting within the allowances and not suffering tax on the gifts.' For example, a gift of £250,000 wouldn't appear in the gifting table, but the estate will pay the tax because they've lost that amount from the nil rate band. Caplan predicts that the number of people who fall into the 'gfiting trap' will be higher as more people take out their tax-free cash early and start the seven-year clock. But this may not go far enough for Reeves, who needs to plug a £40billion black hole. What could Rachel Reeves change? Reeves is reportedly looking at a lifetime gifting allowance to minimise the amount people can pass on to their beneficiaries without incurring tax. The Guardian reported that the Treasury is mulling a lifetime cap to limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can give away. This would be an additional administrative burden and mean HM Revenue & Customs would have to hold long-term records of gifts over decades. Rachel Griffin, chartered financial planner at Quilter says a cap 'might encourage people to make large gifts earlier in life to use up their allowance, potentially moving significant assets out of their control before they are financially ready.' Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus, thinks Reeves could introduce lifetime capital transfer charges, as is already the case with trusts. 'They might do something like the French system where you can give a certain amount within a 15 year period [but] I think it would be very difficult logistically.' Another option for Reeves is to extend the seven-year rule to 10 years, although this would fly in the face of the reduction to five years, as first explored by the now-defunct Office for Tax Simplification. This is likely to receive significant backlash and only encourage people to gift earlier before they can afford to do so, experts say. Instead, it is more likely that the Treasury, which the Guardian reports is reviewing taper relief rules, removes the taper entirely. Taper relief is widely misunderstood and is generally only available to small numbers of the very wealthiest. Individuals only get taper relief if the value of the gift takes you above the nil rate band of £325,000. So if you gave someone £100,000 and then you died within 7 years, all that has done is reduce the available nil rate band, and the taper relief would not apply. As such, taper relief tends only to benefit the very wealthy, according to advisers. This could be a more palatable way for Reeves to change IHT rules for the wealthy, without imposing a wealth tax. One of Reeves' other options is to hand over more powers to HMRC and the Probate Office to ensure people are properly reporting gifts. 'I suspect there's a bit of underreporting [of gifts],' says Mantini. 'The solicitor doing probate might not know of any gifts made within seven years unless they go through bank records to see large sums given out. 'Unless the family or beneficiary declares it to the executor might not have any realistic way of knowing. 'A lot of gifts are small in nature and the larger ones might not always be fully declared.' This would mean more investment in public services at a time when the public purse is stretched as is, and it would prove difficult to establish whether a large sum is a gift or payment. Finally, Reeves could change capital gains tax (CGT) rules - the tax people pay when they make a profit on selling assets such as a house or shares. Currently, when you inherit assets the CGT slate is wiped clean and the base cost of is reset at the value at the date of death. So if someone inherited their parents' house, then sold it straight away, capital gains tax would only be payable on any profit they made above the value of the property when they inherited it - likely nothing. Reeves could change this, so families may have to pay tax on the entire 'profit' made by the child. It could make some families pay the double hit of CGT - up to 24 per cent - and IHT at 40 per cent. What it means for you Any changes to the IHT rules are intended to bring more people into the tax net. A lifetime gifting cap would mark a significant departure from the way IHT has historically been imposed, and advisers say it would mark a huge change to the way families pass on wealth. 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into scope for IHT and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members,' says Griffin. Ingrid McCleaver, partner at DMH Stallard, says a lifetime cap could spell the end of the 'bank of mum and dad', with children who receive a house deposit potentially facing an IHT bill. 'Not only are parents that work hard and save having to pay income tax on their salaries and savings, they may after the next budget suffer an additional tax on death, on amounts they have not had the benefit of for possibly years,' she says. Despite possible changes to how IHT is imposed, experts advise not to make drastic changes. Daniel Hough, wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin says: 'There is a fine line between passing down wealth as efficiently as possible and enjoying a comfortable retirement. There are important discussions you need to have about the sustainability of your retirement pot and that may require scaling back ambitions – or you may find that you have to live with the consequences of your pension running out in your 80s or 90s.'
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Keir Starmer to meet Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Downing Street
Keir Starmer will be joined by the Ukrainian president at Downing Street on Thursday morning, as Europe braces for the outcome of Donald Trump's face-to-face discussions with his Russian counterpart later this week. The UK prime minister's meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy comes after he said Britain stood ready to 'increase pressure' on Russia if necessary. Meanwhile, Trump threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if a ceasefire was rejected by its leader. During a call with the US president and European allies on Wednesday, Starmer praised Trump for his work to bring forward a 'viable' chance of an end to the war. Concerns have been raised over Zelensky's exclusion from the meeting between Trump and Putin, which is set to take place in Alaska on Friday. Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer said: 'This meeting on Friday that President Trump is attending is hugely important. As I've said personally to President Trump for the three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on, we haven't got anywhere near a prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire. 'And now we do have that chance, because of the work of that the president has put in.' Further sanctions could be imposed on Russia should the Kremlin fail to engage, and the UK is already working on its next package of measures targeting Moscow, he said. 'We're ready to support this, including from the plans we've already drawn up to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased,' he told allies. 'It is important to remind colleagues that we do stand ready also to increase pressure on Russia, particularly the economy, with sanctions and wider measures as may be necessary.' Starmer and European leaders have said repeatedly that discussions about Ukraine should not happen without Kyiv's involvement, amid concerns the country is being sidelined in negotiations about its own future. Asked if it was his decision to not invite Zelenskyy to the meeting, Trump said 'no, just the opposite', before adding that a second meeting with the Ukrainian president could take place afterwards. 'We had a very good call, he was on the call, President Zelenskyy was on the call. I would rate it a 10, you know, very, very friendly,' he told reporters in Washington. He added: 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing.' The US president has previously suggested a truce could involve some 'swapping' of land. It is believed one of the Russian leader's demands is for Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas region that it still controls. But Zelenskyy has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by the country's constitution. A joint statement from the 'Coalition of the Willing', a European-led effort to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine in the event of truce, which is co-chaired by Starmer, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said 'international borders must not be changed by force'. It added: 'Sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy should be strengthened if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire in Alaska.'
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves's next inheritance tax raid will be her most pernicious yet
This is not a drill. Repeat, this is not a drill. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are already planning to apply death taxes to pensions in 18 months' time including, it was revealed this week, on the estates of the poor souls who die prematurely before they are even able to spend their money. Now, The Guardian, the Labour Party's newspaper of choice, is reporting that moves are afoot to curtail, or even cut off entirely, your ability to pass on money in your lifetime to avoid it being caught by inheritance tax when you're gone. A well-placed source told The Guardian: 'With so much wealth stored in assets like houses that have shot up in value, we have to find ways to better tap into the inheritances of those who can afford to contribute more.' It is understood that ministers are considering reforming the so-called 'seven-year rule' that allows assets given away within seven years of death to be granted a lower rate of inheritance tax, compared to the usual 40pc. Worse still, Reeves is also believed to be debating putting in a lifetime cap on the amount you can give away before death duties are due. I'm not at all surprised to hear the Chancellor and her increasingly desperate Treasury ministers are hatching new ways to gobble up our pensions. Despite stacks of evidence that wealth taxes won't work, a rump of Labour backbenchers and YouTube economists, such as Gary Stevenson, are convinced they are the answer to Britain's sickly public finances. Severely curtailing how much money people can give away to their children tax-free is a wealth tax – but one that will capture middle-class families, not just the truly wealthy. Since Reeves used her maiden Budget to announce that any money left in 'defined contribution' pensions would be brought into the inheritance tax net, savers have been accelerating the pace of the financial gifts they're handing to their descendants. The Government says the tax raid will raise around £1.5bn a year by 2029-30. But it has probably underestimated families' determination not to hand over an extra penny to HMRC than they need to – hence this latest attempt to close off any remaining legitimate ways to avoid the tax. While rumours so far are scant on detail, something that hasn't been mentioned is my favourite loophole: the 'gifts out of surplus income' rule. This allows unlimited sums to be handed down, so long as the gifts meet a stringent set of requirements (more details on how to qualify here). It would not surprise me if this particular allowance is for the chop. While used by relatively few estates, it is simply too generous for the Chancellor to ignore. My advice, as ever when it comes to inheritance tax, is not to delay any inheritances you were planning to make. Not only does a lifetime gift mean you get to see your family enjoy it, but I think there is less chance of any changes to the inheritance tax regime being retrospective. If you're not comfortable handing over large sums to your grandchildren, you can of course put the money directly into their junior Isas or pension accounts. A parent or grandparent can contribute up to £9,000 each year into an Isa, and up to £2,880 into a child's pension, regardless of the child's earnings. The pension will then have tax relief added at the basic 20pc rate, meaning the contribution is actually £3,600 a year. And there's another person who might welcome a lifetime gift: you. If you were considering that cruise or a big trip to Australia, now is the time to go for it. The whole point of building up a retirement fund is to make your golden years comfortable. Treat yourself.
