Latest news with #Labour government
Times
10 hours ago
- Business
- Times
Families face red tape nightmare with inheritance tax on pensions
Families will be forced to pay inheritance tax on pensions after the government pushed ahead with plans that had sparked significant opposition. From April 2027 pensions will be added to the value of your estate for inheritance tax purposes in a move that the Treasury says will raise £1.46 billion a year by 2029-30. HM Revenue & Customs estimates that about 10,500 estates in 2027-28 will have to pay inheritance tax in the 2029-30 financial year while 38,500 will face a larger bill. Polling earlier this month by AJ Bell, an investment service, suggested that charging inheritance tax on pensions was the Labour government's most unpopular tax change so far. Some 44 per cent of 2,050 adults surveyed were opposed to the change, with only 21 per cent in favour. Renny Biggins from the Investing and Savings Alliance, which represents more than 270 financial services firms, said it was 'disappointing to see that despite significant pushback from the industry, pensions will form part of inheritance tax calculations'. The government originally proposed that pension schemes would have to work out and pay any inheritance tax due on pension pots, while the executors of the deceased's estate would be responsible for calulating tax due on any other assets, such as a home or a share portfolio. After lobbying by the pensions industry, the government has now said that personal representatives, usually either solicitors or bereaved family members, will be liable for reporting and paying any inheritance tax due on pension pots. They will have to do this within six months of a death to avoid interest being charged on overdue payments. A summary of responses to HMRC's consultation on how the rules would work published on Monday said that 'while many respondents supported the principle of bringing pension wealth into the scope of inheritance tax, the majority strongly opposed the proposal to make pension scheme administrators liable for reporting and paying tax due on the pension component of an estate'. Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, said: 'Life is tough enough when you have just lost a loved one without having extra layers of bureaucracy on top. In future, the person dealing with the estate will need to track down all of the pensions held by the deceased which may have any balances in them, contact the schemes, collate all the information and put it into an online calculator and then work out and pay the IHT bill. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts 'Complications will no doubt arise where the family member cannot track down all of the deceased's pensions or where providers are slow to supply the information needed to work out the IHT bill.' He suggested that the government should 'give serious thought' to changing the penalty rules around late payment of inheritance tax bills to ensure that grieving families were not fined because of delays that pension schemes might cause. Webb, now a partner at the consultancy Lane Clark and Peacock, said: 'While the changes HMRC has made are undoubtedly good news for pension schemes and those who administer them, it is hard to see that they are good news for bereaved families.' You can pass on £325,000 of assets from your estate without your beneficiaries paying any inheritance tax. This rises to £500,000 if you leave your main home to a direct descendant and your estate is worth less than £2 million. Any assets above those thresholds are usually taxed at 40 per cent, but anything left to a spouse or civil partner — including a pension from 2027 — is inheritance tax-free. Including pensions in an estate will close a loophole that gave savers a uniquely tax-efficient way of passing on wealth to the next generation. Those who could afford it could use other assets to live off in retirement, leaving their pension savings untouched to be passed on inheritance tax-free. In one piece of good news for families, the government confirmed that death-in-service benefits payable from pension schemes will still be excluded from inheritance tax. Pete Maddern from the insurer Canada Life said: 'These benefits provide a critical short-term financial lifeline for loved ones following the death of a working-age earner. Including them in the changes risked much wider repercussions not only for grieving families, but also for the employers that provide these benefits for their workforce.'
Times
a day ago
- Business
- Times
Families face red tape nightmare over inheritance tax on pensions
Families will be forced to pay inheritance tax on pensions after the government pushed ahead with plans that had faced a significant backlash. Pensions will be added to estates from April 2027 when working out whether someone's estate is liable for inheritance tax at 40 per cent in a move that will raise £1.46 billion a year by 2029-30. HM Revenue & Customs estimates that about 10,500 estates in 2027-28 will now have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) and 38,500 will face a larger bill. Polling earlier this month by AJ Bell, an investment service, suggested charging inheritance tax on pensions was the Labour government's most unpopular tax change since it was elected in July last year. Some 44 per cent of 2,050 adults surveyed were opposed to the change, with only 21 per cent in favour. Renny Biggins from the Investing and Savings Alliance, a trade body that represents more than 270 financial services firms, said it was 'disappointing to see that despite significant pushback from industry, pensions will form part of IHT calculations'. The government had originally proposed that pension schemes would have to work out and pay any inheritance tax due on pension pots, while the executors of the deceased's estate would be responsible for any other assets, such as their home or a share portfolio. After lobbying by the pensions industry, the government has said that personal representatives, usually either solicitors or bereaved family members, will be liable for reporting and paying any inheritance tax due on pension pots. They will have to do so within six months to avoid interest being charged on overdue payments. A summary of responses to HMRC's consultation on how the rules would work published on Monday said that 'while many respondents supported the principle of bringing pension wealth into the scope of inheritance tax, the majority strongly opposed the proposal to make pension scheme administrators liable for reporting and paying tax due on the pension component of an estate'. Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, said: 'Life is tough enough when you have just lost a loved one without having extra layers of bureaucracy on top. In future, the person dealing with the estate will need to track down all of the pensions held by the deceased which may have any balances in them, contact the schemes, collate all the information and put it into an online calculator and then work out and pay the IHT bill. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts 'Complications will no doubt arise where the family member cannot track down all of the deceased's pensions or where providers are slow to supply the information needed to work out the IHT bill.' He suggested the government should 'give serious thought' to changing the penalty rules around late payment of inheritance tax bills to ensure grieving families were not at risk of fines because of delays outside of their control that pension schemes might cause. Webb, now a partner at the consultancy Lane Clark and Peacock, said: 'While the changes HMRC has made are undoubtedly good news for pension schemes and those who administer them, it is hard to see that they are good news for bereaved families.' You can pass on £325,000 of assets from your estate without your beneficiaries paying any inheritance tax. This rises to £500,000 if you leave your main home to a direct descendant and your estate is worth less than £2 million. Any assets above those thresholds are usually taxed at 40 per cent. The change will close a loophole that gave savers a uniquely tax-efficient way of passing on wealth to the next generation. Those who could afford it could use other assets to live off in retirement, leaving their pension savings untouched to be passed on inheritance tax-free. In one piece of good news for families, the government confirmed that death-in-service benefits payable from pension schemes will be excluded from IHT. Pete Maddern from the insurer Canada Life said: 'These benefits provide a critical short-term financial lifeline for loved ones following the death of a working-age earner. Including them in the changes risked much wider repercussions not only for grieving families, but also for the employers that provide these benefits for their workforce.'
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
What are the key recommendations for reforming UK's water sector?
LONDON, July 21 (Reuters) - An official report released on Monday outlined a plan to overhaul Britain's water sector, seeking to better protect the environment, investors, and consumers. The privatised water industry in England and Wales has sparked widespread anger by releasing record levels of sewage into rivers and lakes, prompting the Labour government to promise major reforms when it was elected last year. Below are the highlights of the report's 88 recommendations by the Independent Water Commission: The report recommends a single water regulator in England and one in Wales to replace the current fragmented regulatory system. This would streamline oversight, close regulatory gaps, and boost investor confidence as the sector faces major challenges from climate change and population growth, the report said. The Commission recommended tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including powers for the regulator to block changes in ownership if investors are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers. It recommended that the regulator set "minimum capital" requirements so that companies are less reliant on debt and more financially resilient. The Commission called for a reset of economic regulation with a new "supervisory" approach for tailored oversight and earlier interventions. It also recommended changes to the Price Review process to ensure proper investment and attract long-term, low-risk funding. The report proposed creating eight new regional water planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales. They would be responsible for developing water investment plans, streamlining existing planning processes, directing funding and ensuring accountability from all sectors that impact water. The Commission called for a National Water Strategy covering at least 25 years and with regular milestones. The strategy should guide cross-sector water use and be supported by ministerial priorities to guide regulation. The report recommended a national social tariff to ensure consistent support for low-income customers who need help to pay their bills, addressing current regional disparities. The report urged stronger environmental regulation, including improved monitoring, stricter rules on abstraction, sludge, drinking water standards and water supply. It recommended compulsory water metering, revised tariffs for industrial users, expanded water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. It also set out where environmental legislation needs updating. The report called for reforms in how water infrastructure is managed, monitored and delivered, including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
The awful truth about Labour? They're just continuity Sunak
At Prime Minister's Questions this week, Keir Starmer told us 'Mr Speaker, we're only just getting started'. I fear so. It's time to cower under the beds. For if this first year of Labour government is anything to go by, we have a grim prospect ahead. Let's review the record. GDP per head is at the same level as mid-2022. It flatlined in Labour's first six months, grew in the first quarter of this year only by pulling activity forward to avoid the April tax increases, and will no doubt shrink in the second. Nobody is getting better off – or if they are, it's at someone else's expense. In parallel, and not coincidentally, Rachel Reeves pushed up the tax burden by around 1.5 per cent of GDP, driving it to the highest levels for over 70 years – and yet managed to increase rather than reduce the deficit too. Labour's backbenches won't allow any spending cuts or even restraint. It is not surprising, then, that the OBR said this month that 'UK public finances [are] in a relatively vulnerable position and facing mounting risks.' So Reeves is now in a vicious circle: tax increases cause slower growth, receipts then fall, tax goes up further, and the real economy starts to collapse. Accordingly, wealth creators are fleeing, employment is falling and unemployment is growing, and inflation is well over target. The once outlandish idea of a wealth tax – rejected even by the 1970s Labour government – now seems a real prospect. We are well into a downward spiral. All this is made worse by the deranged doubling down on net zero, a policy which is based on simple untruths about the cost of wind and solar power. Indeed the so-called renewables industry is not a business in any meaningful sense of the word: it only exists because of subsidy and government regulation and therefore destroys value for the country rather than creates it. Its results are that Britain pays some of the highest electricity prices in the Western world, energy-intensive industry flees the country, and the government's 'industrial strategy' robs Peter to pay Paul to subsidise energy costs for their favoured clients. Meanwhile, Reeves denounces the burden of regulation but does nothing about it. The new Employment Bill will disastrously weaken Britain's labour market. The Renters' Rights Bill will push up housing costs further. Bridget Phillipson's Schools Bill is destroying one of the successes of recent years. Even football has got its new regulator. The planning system is not being deregulated, just worked harder, and housebuilding is still falling, disastrously so in London. The country's social contract feels dangerously close to fraying. Non-European legal net migration in 2024 was over half a million, 544,000 to be precise. The overall figure was only lower, at 431,000, because more Brits and EU citizens left than arrived – and who can blame them? Illegal immigration on small boats is at its highest level ever, and there is now a growing culture of suspicion and confrontation, not surprisingly, between communities and illegal arrivals dumped in hotels. Dissent is repressed and awkward facts are covered up. That's why, as shadow minister Alex Burghart put it on Thursday, the potential for civil unrest is 'underpriced'. And finally, Starmer points to his trade deals with India and the US, yet can't bring himself to admit that neither would be possible if we were still in the EU. And he has just agreed a deal with the EU itself that allows Brussels to set our food and agriculture rules and our carbon prices, without any say in them, makes us pay for the privilege, and gives away our fishing grounds for another 12 years too: a joke negotiation with a dangerous result. Truly, Britain has not had such a dreadful and incompetent government for many years, a government that not only doesn't govern in the interests of the people but doesn't even seem to like them very much, a government that feels more like an imposed colonial regime than one with any genuine popular consent. Yet one thing must be acknowledged. Yes, things are getting worse fast. But the direction of travel hasn't changed, only the pace. High taxes and spending; net zero; high immigration; the destruction of the rental market; the football regulator; the smoking ban: all these were the projects of the last years of the Conservative government. In many ways, the premiership of Starmer is a mere continuation of Rishi Sunak's 20 months in office. Labour has doubled down on them, and added madnesses of their own, but they are on a well-travelled path which the Conservative Party has not yet convincingly disowned – as its poll ratings show. Kemi Badenoch claims that the Tory party is 'under new management': well, maybe, but there isn't yet a new plan. One is needed soon. British voters' consent for the current ways of doing things is now fragile. Yet much of our insouciant political class seems simply indifferent to this reality. A prospectus for radical change is needed if there is to be an effective opposition and if we are, as a country, to dig ourselves out of this mess. Who can pick up the baton and get us onto a new track? Perhaps we will find out this autumn.
The Guardian
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Pupils in England to be taught law behind sex and gender identity, new guidance says
Pupils in England should be taught what the law is on biological sex and gender reassignment, but schools must be 'careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact', according to new government guidance. The updated relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) guidance, published on Tuesday, says schools 'should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity' and must avoid any suggestion that social transitioning offers a 'simple solution' to feelings of distress or discomfort. It also says schools should avoid using cartoons or diagrams that 'oversimplify', that could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children, or that perpetuate stereotypes or encourage pupils to question their gender. The long-awaited guidance abandons many of the changes proposed by the last government, including a ban on teaching the concept of gender identity and strict age limits, which would have prevented under-nines from receiving sex education. The Labour government said instead that schools should develop the RSHE curriculum to be 'relevant, age and stage appropriate and accessible to pupils in their area'. While it recommended that primary schools teach sex education in years 5 and 6, in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth, it is not compulsory. 'Primary schools should consult parents about the content of anything that will be taught within sex education,' the guidance says. 'This process should include offering parents support in talking to their children about sex education and how to link this with what is being taught in school as well as advice about parents' right to request withdrawal from sex education.' The guidance allows primary school teachers to discuss the sharing of naked images or online sexual content if it is something that is affecting their pupils, and they can discuss online sexual content where they know that children have seen pornography. The 47-page document also addresses online gambling, strangulation and suffocation, sextortion, deepfakes and suicide prevention, as well as 'incel' culture and the links between pornography and misogyny. It has been broadly welcomed by school leaders, but some campaigners have expressed concerns about 'watering down' earlier proposals on gender. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, said: 'It's a big shame that the Department for Education has watered down sections of the draft guidance it inherited from the previous government which sought to counter the trans activist positions adopted by many schools over the past decade.' Bayswater, a support group for 'parents of trans-identified adolescents and young people', said: 'The new RSHE guidance fails to address the serious safeguarding issues around teaching gender identity to children. 'As well as significantly weakening the clarity offered by the earlier draft guidance, this version introduces topics which are likely to be harmful to vulnerable children. For example, direct teaching about suicide may actually undermine suicide prevention strategies.' Margaret Mulholland, a special needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), welcomed 'the clarity over biological sex and gender reassignment' in the guidance. 'There are strongly held and sometimes polarised views over these issues and it is important to have a clear set of national guidelines to follow.' The government is expected to publish separate guidance for schools and colleges on gender-questioning pupils shortly. Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, welcomed the fact that age limits have been dropped. 'Schools already work hard to ensure that teaching is age-appropriate and this approach gives them the vital flexibility to respond to their own community and the needs of pupils in their schools,' he said. 'However, the new guidance asks schools to teach more content with only the same amount of time available. Government cannot continue to impose additions to the curriculum without proposing how the additional teaching time needed is to be found.' In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@ or jo@ In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at
