Finance (No. 2) Bill — New Clause 1 — Application of section 18 IHTA 1984 — 2 May 2006 at 17:45
Patrick McLoughlin MP, West Derbyshire voted in the minority (Aye).
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The aim of the new clause is to ensure that husbands and wives continue to be free of the burden of inheritance tax when they transfer property to each other; to ensure that nothing in the Bill narrows the operation of the long-established spouse exemption from inheritance tax in section 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and to ensure that all transfers covered by section 18 before Budget day will continue to be covered, regardless of other provisions in the Bill, including schedule 20. I am not sure that the Government are minded to accept new clause 1, but if they do so, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) will wish to move amendment (c). The Opposition are happy to support that amendment, and hope to press the matter to vote, as it has the same general goal as new clause 1, but has more watertight drafting. In the unlikely event that new clause 1 and amendment (c) are accepted there would still be a number of significant problems with schedule 20, to which the Opposition propose to return in Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
The Committee divided: Ayes 193, Noes 285.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||146 (+2 tell)||0||75.5%|
|Lab||285 (+2 tell)||0||0||81.3%|