Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the cost of Crossrail in England justified consequential proportionate funding for Wales while the construction of HS2 in England does not.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
HS2 is a heavy rail programme. The UK Government is responsible for heavy rail infrastructure across England and Wales, so spends money on this in Wales rather than funding the Welsh Government to do so through the Barnett formula. This approach is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas reserved in Wales, as set out in the Statement of Funding Policy.
The Government remains committed to heavy rail schemes in Wales, by providing funding for both operations, maintenance and infrastructure, and enhancement schemes such as modernising Cardiff Central Station.
Conversely, Crossrail is a local transport project. Since local transport is devolved to the Welsh Government, the Barnett formula is applied in the usual way when the Department for Transport is allocated additional funding for Crossrail.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to undertake an audit of the usefulness and results of the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust scheme with regard to (1) their value for public money, sustained investment, employment and innovation, and (2) recommendations about the continuation and development of the schemes.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
An evaluation of the venture capital schemes was undertaken in 2022. These were published on gov.uk 1.
The Government is committed to ensuring early-stage, innovative companies have access to the investment they need to grow and develop. These schemes provide a range of tax reliefs to encourage investment in higher-risk, early-stage companies which face the biggest challenges in accessing growth capital.
The Government legislated on 3 September to extend the UK venture capital tax relief sunset clause, from April 2025 to April 2035.
[1] Evaluation of Venture Capital Schemes - GOV.UK
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much has been allocated from the £3 billion earmarked in the November 2017 Budget for 2018–20 to public bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to assist with the costs of leaving the EU; and, of these provisions, how much will be available for border policing and security in Northern Ireland.
Answered by Lord Bates
My Written Ministerial Statement[1] of 13 March 2018 set out that UK departments have been allocated £1.5bn to prepare for EU Exit and meet their responsibilities across the whole of the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Home Office was allocated £395m, which includes funding to take the steps necessary to prepare the UK border.
Where responsibilities are devolved, this generated Barnett Consequentials for each of the devolved administrations as set out in my Written Ministerial Statement.
[1] https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2018-03-13/HLWS521/
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to reports that industry representatives in the UK have been asked by Her Majesty's Government to sign non-disclosure agreements before meetings with HM Treasury relating to the UK's departure from the EU.
Answered by Lord Bates
The government believes that businesses from across the UK have an important role to play in the policymaking process.
It is standard practice for the Government to use Non-Disclosure Agreements when appropriate. Non-Disclosure Agreements with industry representatives are crucial to open exchange of information on options and scenarios. They ensure that planning, negotiations and decisions are based on what is achievable and in the best interests of the UK when we leave the EU.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they (1) sought, and (2) received, from (a) the Bank of England, and (b) the financial services industries, including insurance and financial derivatives, before tabling their amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill which specifies 11pm on 29 March 2019 as the statutory time and date for departure from the EU.
Answered by Lord Bates
It became clear in the run up to EU (Withdrawal) Bill’s Committee Stage that there was uncertainty as to whether the ‘exit day’ appointed by the Bill would correspond to the day that the UK actually leaves the EU. The Government listened carefully to the debate around setting ‘exit day’ for statutory purposes of the Bill and recognised the importance of providing as much certainty as possible.
The Treasury is working closely with the Bank of England to ensure the UK’s smooth and orderly withdrawal from the European Union.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are being made to assist UK financial services industries with the review, modification, or termination of international contracts with companies and countries in the EU27 before 11pm on 29 March 2019, in order to ensure that relevant contracts will be legally enforceable after that time.
Answered by Lord Bates
As the Financial Policy Committee explained in its November Financial Stability Report, a withdrawal of permissions to conduct cross-border business following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union could impair financial companies’ ability to perform or service outstanding financial contracts. This could affect both UK and EU financial services firms and their customers. The FPC judges that the largest identified risks relate to over-the-counter derivatives and insurance contracts.
The Government has been actively engaging with the UK regulators and with the financial services sector to understand how the UK's exit from the EU could impact financial services firms and their customers, including through the effect of withdrawal on existing contractual relationships. The Government is considering all options for mitigating risks to the continuity of outstanding cross-border financial services contracts.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of (1) the total number, and (2) the annual cost, of additional HMRC civil servants who will need to be recruited as a result of the UK leaving the EU if (a) the UK remains in a customs union with the EU, and (2) the UK leaves the EU Customs Union.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Government has been clear that as we leave the EU, we will also leave the EU Customs Union. Any changes to staffing levels within HM Revenue and Customs will be dependent on the outcome of EU exit negotiations. HMRC is working with HM Treasury to understand all costs associated with the options for the UK’s future customs arrangements after the UK has exited the EU.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the October International Monetary Fund half-yearly fiscal monitor report view that tax systems should have become more progressive to reduce inequality and that there is now "scope for increasing the progressivity of income taxation without significantly hurting growth".
Answered by Lord Bates
The International Monetary Fund’s report conclusions consider the OECD as a whole and are not specifically aimed at the UK.
The UK already has a progressive system. The income tax system consists of three progressive rates of tax – 20%, 40% and 45%, which sit above an internationally high tax-free personal allowance. As a result the top 1% of income taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax and HMRC statistics show additional rate taxpayers paid £46.7bn of tax in 2014-15 compared with £34.5bn in 2010-11.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, during and since his recent official visit to China, with the government of China and Chinese industrialists about steel production and trade; whether, in those discussions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised the issue of steel products dumping; and if so, what response he has received.
Answered by Lord O'Neill of Gatley
There has been very substantial ministerial engagement with the Chinese government in recent months, both here and in China.
During the course of those meetings, developments in the steel market were discussed on numerous occasions,including in discussions between the Prime Minister, Chancellor and President Xi during the State Visit. It was also raised by the Business Secretary.
Our relationship with China includes regular discussions of the market reforms needed to underpin growth in both our countries. This Chinese State Visit is delivering over £30bn of trade and investment deals.
Asked by: Lord Kinnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each year from 2003–4 to 2014–15 inclusive, (1) what was the national debt, expressed in (a) monetary terms, and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product, and (2) what interest was paid on that debt, expressed in (a) monetary terms, and (b) in per capita terms.
Answered by Lord Bridges of Headley
In 2010 the coalition government inherited a deficit of 10.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) – the largest since the Second World War. With such a high deficit, it is inevitable that debt has continued to rise. Over the last parliament the government made substantial progress towards stabilising the public finances, halving the deficit from its post-war peak to 5 per cent of GDP in 2014-15. The Office for Budget Responsibility have forecast that debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 2014/15, and this year will fall for the first time in 14 years as a result of the government’s actions.
The table below provides Public Sector Net Debt (excluding public sector banks) and debt interest expenditure figures for each year in the period 2003/04 to 2014/15. For net debt, the figures are provided in both nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP; for debt interest, the figures are given in nominal terms and pounds sterling per capita.
Public Sector Net Debt1 | Debt Interest2 | |||
£ billion | % of GDP | £ billion | £ per capita | |
2003/04 | 394.2 | 31.8 | 22.0 | 367 |
2004/05 | 449.2 | 34.4 | 24.6 | 407 |
2005/06 | 492.0 | 35.5 | 26.3 | 432 |
2006/07 | 529.3 | 36.2 | 28.6 | 466 |
2007/08 | 561.5 | 36.9 | 31.2 | 505 |
2008/09 | 727.7 | 49.2 | 31.5 | 506 |
2009/10 | 959.8 | 62.2 | 31.6 | 503 |
2010/11 | 1102.5 | 68.8 | 46.6 | 736 |
2011/12 | 1192.0 | 72.3 | 49.7 | 780 |
2012/13 | 1300.0 | 76.8 | 48.9 | 762 |
2013/14 | 1403.2 | 79.1 | 48.7 | 753 |
2014/15 | 1486.5 | 80.8 | 45.2 | 696 |
1: Excluding public sector banks; by convention, GDP is a 12 month average centred at the financial year end. Source: ONS. | ||||
2: The per capita figure is calculated by dividing debt interest in £'s by the ONS estimate of the size of the UK population at the financial year end. Note that the population estimate for 2014/15 is a forecast, based on the latest ONS projections. Source: ONS. | ||||