Draft Non-Contentious Probate Fees Order 2017

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 General Committees

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank the Minister for his explanation. However, we wish to oppose this draft statutory instrument, and I will explain why.

The reforms being introduced are a form of taxation by the back door. At present there is a simple, clear flat-rate probate fee, but these measures will impose a significantly increased sliding scale on all properties worth more than £50,000. It is not acceptable to place the extra burden of high probate fees on bereaved families in their moment of grief.

Grants of probate currently cost a flat fee of £155 when applied for by a solicitor and £215 when done by an individual. Under the new system, however, the costs will rise enormously. They will rise to £300 for an estate worth £50,000, and up to the enormous amount of £20,000 at the higher end. An estate worth £50,000 is not a large one. The fact that this Conservative Government think it is a reasonable threshold at which to start charging inflated fees shows once again how out of touch they are.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I will just finish what I am saying. Recently, Royal London said that a freedom of information request it made to the Ministry of Justice showed that the MOJ could not provide the cost of handling applications broken down by the size of an estate. The MOJ said that it did not have such information,

“because there is no legal or business requirement”

for that.

[James Duddridge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That reveals the extent to which the MOJ is woefully unprepared to introduce this new stealth death tax. Once again, the Government are exposed as unfair, incompetent and dishonest.

[James Duddridge]

Will the hon. Lady give way? This is a debate.

[The Chair]

Order. May I inform the hon. Gentleman that it is protocol for the two Front Benchers to make their presentations first? It is possible to intervene, but it is very clear that the Opposition spokesperson is determined to go through the first part of her address. There will be plenty of time to speak later. The hon. Gentleman has caught my eye, so if he delays his attempt to converse I will call him as soon as I can.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Thank you, Sir Alan. The policy shows that the Government are being unfair, incompetent and dishonest. The previous Prime Minister said that the Conservative Government would take the £1 million family home out of inheritance tax altogether. Now this Government want to increase fees radically and hope no one will notice, which proves that their promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

[James Duddridge]

On a point of order, Sir Alan. is the word “dishonest” parliamentary language?

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. I do not think that that terminology should be encouraged. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady will redefine her description in the course of her re-address to the Committee.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Thank you, Sir Alan. As you have rightly said, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East will have plenty of time to contribute after I have spoken. The rule is that if I do not wish to take an intervention, I do not have to do so—[Interruption.] The Whip is speaking from a sedentary position.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am going to finish what I want to say. I think that everybody knows the context in which I used the word “dishonest”. It was clear and obvious.

[James Duddridge]

Withdraw.

[The Chair]

Order. I made a ruling earlier. The hon. Member for Bolton South East is currently trying to explain her use of the word and withdrawing it. I am giving her the opportunity to do that. Will members on both sides of the Committee please calm down? We are only eight minutes into the sitting. I would appreciate it if the Committee would give the Opposition spokeswoman the opportunity to explain herself and then we will move on.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Thank you, Sir Alan. As I was trying to explain, I used the word—I will not repeat it—in a particular context. I am happy to use a different expression. If Conservative Members had given me a moment to finish what I had to say, they would have heard me explain that.

The measure exposes the Government’s incompetence and it is unfair on the people. The previous Prime Minister promised that he would take the £1 million family home out of inheritance tax altogether, yet this Government want to increase fees radically and hope that no one will notice. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has singled out this SI, stating:

“The Lord Chancellor is not permitted to impose a tax…Therefore, despite the arguments put forward by the Ministry of Justice, the Committee has a real doubt as to whether the Lord Chancellor may use a power to prescribe non-contentious probate fees for the purpose of funding services”.

Furthermore, the majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation did not agree with the proposals. Despite that, the Government have seen fit to proceed. One wonders what the point of the exercise was if it is to be ignored. We believe that the majority of respondents were correct and that the proposals are indeed flawed.

The Government have said that the dramatic increases in fees are justified by the need to cover costs. However, given the scale of the increases, it is blatantly obvious that they are not about covering costs, but about raising revenue. As Royal London’s director of policy, Steve Webb, has said:

“The Government is treating bereaved families as if they were a ‘nice little earner’.”

We need probate fees that are clear and fair, and that do not treat grieving families as cash cows for the Government. That is why we oppose the measure.