Inheritance Tax
Debate between Peter Dowd and Noah Law(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Noah Law
It is objectively untrue that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. It penalises, at best, 4% or 5% of people with the wealthiest estates. I understand the cultural arguments that the Conservatives are making about aspiration and all the rest of it—we should all strive to support that—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, this proposal is not pragmatic at all; this is bonkers.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to Winston Churchill. I often like to refer to Shakespeare, because I think that goes a little above that. Shakespeare said:
“no legacy is so rich as honesty.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate from the Opposition is dishonest? They left the finances of this country in a mess, and they have to be honest about it and face up to that.
Noah Law
We would do far better to have a pragmatic debate, as my hon. Friend suggests. Perhaps we should look at uprating the thresholds or bringing in more tax revenue through some of the means that the Treasury is exploring. I would be keen to hear in the Minister’s winding-up about progress on that.
This Government are already investing £1.7 billion in improving the efficiency of tax collection and cracking down on tax avoidance. That should yield an extra £7.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Are these not the kind of discussions we should be having, rather than just encouraging more and more tax avoidance by people who, quite frankly, can afford to pay their way? It should be clear to those on both sides of the House that the answer to the very richest avoiding taxes is to legislate to close those loopholes and not to cut their taxes, which is exactly what a would-be Tory Government are proposing to do.
Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality
Debate between Peter Dowd and Noah Law(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna Gelderd
Thank you, Mr Dowd, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
I thank Feargal Sharkey, who visited my constituency last summer, and I thank the Minister for all her work on this important topic. Feargal Sharkey met local residents with me and heard the strength of local feeling on this issue. Our fishing communities suffer from poor water quality, which can cause habitat degradation and put our commercial catches at risk. Research by the Marine Conservation Society and the University of Portsmouth has shown a worrying increase in chemicals such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in seaweed. PFAS, which are known as forever chemicals because of their highly persistent qualities, do not break down in our natural environment. They accumulate in the environment and in our food chain, impacting biodiversity and public health. This is a serious concern, and I look forward to working with the Minister to do more to address it.
Labour’s Water (Special Measures) Bill is a much-needed first step towards improving the accountability and performance of water companies, which is something I welcome and I congratulate the Minister on. It is time to ensure that water bosses can no longer sell us down the river. Customer service, environmental protection and investment in infrastructure must be prioritised over profit in relation to what is fundamentally a public asset.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to intervene, because we are right up against it. Thank you.