Asked by: Gregory Campbell (Democratic Unionist Party - East Londonderry)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he plans to take in the 2024-25 financial year to help tackle crypto currency fraud.
Answered by Bim Afolami - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government takes the issue of fraud very seriously, and published a comprehensive Fraud Strategy in May last year. Through this the Government will work: with industry to remove the vulnerabilities that fraudsters exploit; with intelligence agencies to shut down fraudulent infrastructure; with law enforcement to identify and bring the most harmful offenders to justice; and with all partners to ensure that the public have the advice and support they need
Further, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) commenced enforcement of the cryptoassets financial promotion regime in October last year, requiring such promotions to be fair, clear and not misleading. This is aimed at improving consumers’ understanding of the risks and benefits associated with cryptoasset purchases and ensuring that cryptoasset promotions are held to the same standards as similar risk financial services products. In the next phase of its work, the Government is creating a comprehensive financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets in the UK.
Asked by: Nadia Whittome (Labour - Nottingham East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department is taking steps to support nurseries experiencing financial challenges as a result of increased business rates.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government recognises the pressure that businesses have been under since the pandemic and that is why the government froze the business rates multiplier for three consecutive years from April 2021 until April 2024 at a cost of £14.5 billion.
To make sure that the most vulnerable businesses continue to be supported, the government announced a further freeze to the small business multiplier at Autumn Statement for 2024-25, which will protect over a million ratepayers from a multiplier increase. This means bills will be 6.6 per cent lower than without the freeze. In addition to this support, some nurseries will already be in receipt of business rates relief where they have a ‘charitable purpose’, such as those part of academy chains.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many advance transfer pricing agreements have been signed by HM Revenue and Customs in each of the past five years.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
HM Revenue and Customs has entered into the following number of advance pricing agreements in the past five tax years:
This information is included in the Transfer Pricing and Diverted Profits Tax Statistics 2022 to 2023 which are publicly available and published on gov.uk[1].
[1] Transfer Pricing and Diverted Profits Tax statistics 2022 to 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is developing economic models to forecast (a) price trends and (b) growth potential in cryptocurrencies.
Answered by Bim Afolami - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government is not developing economic models to forecast cryptoasset trends. Rather, it uses information from a range of sources to understand broad trends in the market in order to inform policy development.
In October last year, the Treasury published its final proposals for creating the UK’s financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets, and is currently working to deliver legislation giving effect to its proposals. As part of this, the government will publish analysis of the impacts of its legislation on cryptoasset businesses in scope of the forthcoming regime in the usual way.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether self-employed individuals who file their tax returns late but owe no tax are penalised.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
HMRC issues SA tax returns to customers when the information they hold suggests that the customer meets the published criteria for completing one. HMRC often cannot determine someone’s tax liability until they have sent in a tax return, therefore they need the return to establish whether there is tax due or not. Late filing and payment penalties are charged to encourage customers to file on time but we can cancel a customer’s late filing penalty if they have a reasonable excuse. Customers can also ask HMRC to remove them from the SA process for future years if they no longer meet the criteria.
From October 2011 the penalty legislation changed, from this point the capping of penalties was no longer factored into the calculation and any fixed penalty applied remained at the full amount regardless of liability.
Although no change to the current penalty regime has been announced, Penalty Reform within Making Tax Digital will change the way we calculate penalties for late Submission and late payment of tax. The new legislation will factor in the Liability amount, Filing frequency and length of time outstanding within its penalty calculations.
In reforming late payment and late filing penalties HMRC’s aim is to encourage those who persistently default to comply with their tax obligations rather than penalise those who make occasional errors.
Asked by: Alistair Strathern (Labour - Mid Bedfordshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) officials in his Department on compensation and support for affected Equitable Life policyholders.
Answered by Bim Afolami - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Equitable Life Payment Scheme has been fully wound down and closed since 2016 and there are no plans to reopen any previous decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review the £1.5 billion funding allocation previously made to it. Further guidance on the status of the Payment Scheme after closure is available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equitable-life-payment-scheme#closure-of-the-scheme.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 8 April (HL3589), whether they will now answer the question put; namely, what is their assessment of the implications for calculating entitlement to contributory working age benefits and pensions of abolishing, rather than cutting, national insurance contributions.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government already cut employee NICs by 4p, self-employed NICs by 3p and abolished the requirement to pay Class 2 for self-employed people across Autumn and Spring without increasing borrowing or cutting spending. That is the model the Government wants to follow when it is prudent to go further.
The ambition to abolish NICs is about reducing tax and rewarding work, not about reforming the contributory benefits system. It is a long-term ambition, and the Government has been clear, this cannot be done overnight and this can only be done in a fiscally responsible way.
Cutting NICs rates does not affect anyone’s entitlement to the State Pension or contributory benefits.
Asked by: Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to remarks by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 21 February (HL Deb col 666) with regard to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in the context of engaging with the EU for approval for extending the enterprise investment scheme (EIS) and venture capital trust (VCT) scheme, whether the subsidy control provisions of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement apply to EIS and VCT relief, in particular the requirement under Article 363 of that agreement that a subsidy must be selective.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government is extending the sunset clause for the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and the Venture Capital Trust (VCT) scheme to 2035.
The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement is now the primary framework governing subsidy control between the UK and EU. As such, EU State aid rules no longer apply to the UK, save for the limited circumstances covered by the Windsor Framework.
For the EIS and VCT schemes, the government is engaging with the EU, under the Windsor Framework, due to Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU Single Market.
Asked by: Gregory Campbell (Democratic Unionist Party - East Londonderry)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress he has made on the UK Green Taxonomy financial proposals.
Answered by Bim Afolami - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government remains committed to delivering a UK Green Taxonomy to support an increase in financing for activities supporting the transition to net zero and delivering on UK environmental objectives.
The Government expects to publish the consultation on the UK Green Taxonomy shortly.
Asked by: Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru - Ceredigion)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much additional funding the Welsh Government received based on updated calculations to the Barnett Formula at the end of the 2023-24 financial year.
Answered by Laura Trott - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The 2021 Spending Review set the largest annual block grant for the Welsh Government, in real terms, of any spending review settlement since the devolution Acts. On top of this the Welsh Government received over £1 billion through the Barnett formula in 2023-24, including £200 million at Supplementary Estimates 2023-24.
The Welsh Government is well-funded to deliver all its devolved responsibilities, receiving around 20% more per person compared to equivalent funding in England. This is around £1 billion more each year than the Holtham Commission indicated – and the Welsh Government agreed - was fair for Wales relative to England.