Non-domicile Status Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury
Tuesday 28th January 2025

(2 days, 23 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am slightly confused about what underlies the noble Lord’s question, given that, as I say, the previous Government introduced this party’s policy on this issue. The OBR had migration assumptions associated with that policy, as it does with this one. The OBR has factored in the potential behavioural response of affected non-domiciled individuals into its costings. It accounts for an assumed level of migration from this group, just as it did for the previous Government’s groups. So, as I understand it, the migration assumptions for the previous Government’s reforms were 10% and, for this Government’s reforms, they are 12%.

Lord Watts Portrait Lord Watts (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Does the Minister find it strange—

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

Not again!

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Watts Portrait Lord Watts (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Yes, noble Lords are going to get it. Does the Minister find it strange that members of the party opposite seem to be very worried about non-doms, when the last Government introduced taxes that hit ordinary working families and they did not utter a word of criticism about that?

Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I find quite a lot strange about the attitude of the party opposite, not least what he says—the fact that it introduced £30 billion-worth of taxes on working people in the last Parliament, and yet it does not seem to think there is anything wrong with that and still has not apologised.