Health and Social Care Levy

Paul Holmes Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

There are two tests for the package announced yesterday. First, does it fix social care? Secondly, is it funded fairly? The answer to both those questions is no. It is a broken promise, it is unfair, and it is a tax on jobs. At the general election less than two years ago, the Prime Minister said to voters:

“Read my lips, we will not be raising taxes on income or VAT or national insurance.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not sure where he is today—went further and solemnly said:

“Our plans are to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting national insurance.”

The Government have broken their legally binding promise on international development, they are breaking it again on the triple lock, and the country is now littered with Tory broken promises torn from the election manifestos of all Conservative Members—promises that they made to their constituents and their country. Promises used to count for something; today the Tory word, and guarantees from the Prime Minister, count for absolutely nothing at all.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he can tell us what he put on his election leaflets.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I remind her that the Conservative party won on the basis of its election manifesto, and the Labour party lost. In the interests of fairness and for the people of this country who voted for her party, will she outline to the House what the Labour party’s plan is to fix social care, because so far we have heard nothing?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will come on to that in a moment, but that sums it up. You went into the election with a set of promises, and now you are breaking them one by one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I know that my hon. Friend is a fierce advocate of pubs and brewers, and he has been proposing a duty differential for several years. I should stress that I am personally very interested in this proposal, but there are a number of complex issues associated with it, including how producers and wholesalers would account for and manage their stock of beer; how to ensure that any reduced rate is not exploited fraudulently; and how any differential would interact with the existing small brewers relief scheme. However, I would like to reassure him that we are looking closely at the proposals he has put forward.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

What progress his Department has made on the establishment of freeports.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

At the Budget, I announced the location of eight freeports in eight regions of England following a highly competitive process. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is now leading a cross-Government effort to support the winning bidders to establish their freeport, and we expect the first freeports to open later this year.

[Paul Holmes [V]]

My right hon. Friend authored a report in 2017, which found that freeports could easily create up to 90,000 jobs if they were as successful as the US foreign trade zone programme. Does he agree that, by voting against our Finance Bill and the setting up of freeports earlier this month, such as the Solent freeport near my constituency, the Labour party has shown that it has no interest in creating jobs and levelling up opportunity across the country, as this Government are committed to doing?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I congratulate everyone involved in the Solent freeport bid. This Government are using freeports to boost jobs, investment, trade and growth. Local communities, from Merseyside to Teesside, Humber and indeed the Solent, all agree with us and it is a shame that the Labour party does not support their aspirations.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

That is not the case. We have done a huge amount. I have been part of that engagement with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. It would be nice if Scottish National party Members would start talking up the opportunities for their businesses, goods and services, because there are many—from financial services to manufacturing to world-renowned Scottish products—that will remain protected in the EU through geographical indicators, as they were before the end of the transition period. The trade and co-operation agreement is only one of many agreements as the UK enters the global stage as a sovereign trading nation. We have already struck deals with countries including Canada, Japan and Singapore, with many more to come, and we will grow our GDP and increase our trade with the rest of the world, creating new opportunities for exporters, and delivering better choice and value for money for our consumers.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I thank the Minister, who is my county neighbour, for giving way. While she is extolling the virtues of the deal that is being delivered by this Government, does she agree there is a seeming inconsistency from SNP Members—that is, having voted against the deal at every stage during its the passage in this place, they would have ensured a no-deal exit from the European Union, which would have made more disruption for Scottish people?

[Penny Mordaunt]

That goes to the heart of it. I do not think that Scottish National party Members are interested in practical benefits for the people they represent. What they are interested in is causing division and chaos.

Let me turn briefly to the fishing sector. I have already spoken about securing the uplift in quota for Scotland. We also recognise the critical role that the Scottish fleet plays. It is for that reason that we have secured £14 million in the spending review to support Scotland’s domestic fishery priorities; that is in addition to the £100 million, and goes way beyond our manifesto commitment to maintain funding. This investment will modernise and rejuvenate the industry, and strengthen the long-term sustainability of the catching and processing sectors.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central also mentioned Erasmus. We changed our negotiating position at the start to incorporate the asks of the devolved Administrations regarding Erasmus, and we fought very hard to get a good deal from the EU, but that was not on offer. Instead, we have developed the Turing scheme, which will benefit more students and students from a wider variety of backgrounds than previously enjoyed the Erasmus programme.

An SNP Opposition day debate does not happen every day, so the topic chosen and the content of the speeches tell us much about the focus of a particular political party. There is a clear theme to both debates today, and, alas, it has been a predictable one: to unpick democratic votes, and to ignore and undermine referendums. Nothing about business results; everything about overturning results. I look forward to seeing whether SNP speakers this afternoon offer one practical suggestion to any of the unresolved issues affecting businesses, or offer any help to persuade the EU of initiatives that will benefit all parties. The SNP, through its fanaticism and now its emerging conduct, is losing the fragments of credibility that it once may have held. Today, we have again seen its Members’ contempt for democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I am genuinely sorry to make Members sit through two speeches from me today, but I must point out that this is the second Opposition day debate that has continued to highlight the strange contradictions and paradoxical policies of the Scottish National party. We have had a debate in which the SNP extolled the virtues of independence, yet in this debate it is wishing to submit to the whims and diktats of the EU. May I politely remind the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) that she and her party voted against the deal that this Government provided? Without that deal, the Scottish people would have had a no-deal exit, which would have meant even more of the disruption to UK services that she so complains about from the SNP Front Bench.

The SNP extols the virtues of European Union ties, but the SNP and the Labour party were major proponents of the EU vaccine scheme. The Scottish National party’s Constitution Secretary—the very person responsible for devising the arrangements for Scottish separation—was promoting the EU scheme and insisted that the UK’s decision not to join the EU vaccination scheme was an “idiotic refusal”. However, thanks to our vaccine scheme, doses per 100 people are three times higher in Scotland than the European Union average—37.5 doses per 100 people, compared with 11.1 doses per 100 people in the EU. The Scottish Housing Minister called the UK Government “ideological, inept and irresponsible”. In light of these facts and the decisions that this Government took to ensure that the people of Scotland could access lifesaving vaccines, I rather think those comments would be better directed at the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, whose ideological desire to break up the Union would leave Scotland in a much worse position.

I am also alarmed at the impact the SNP position would have on Scotland’s fishermen. For the first time in a generation, our fishermen will have access to our fish, and the proportion will rise from half to two thirds over time.

The economic support provided throughout this pandemic has shown that we are stronger as a Union, and it has helped Scotland enormously. Almost 1 million jobs in Scotland have been protected through the United Kingdom’s furlough scheme.

Without a hint of irony, Scottish National party Members stand up in front of us and try to claim that our departure from the EU will create unprecedented economic damage but that our separating from the Union will suddenly deliver a major economic boom for Scotland. Who are they trying to kid? Our commitment to levelling up was demonstrated in the Budget by the relocation of 1,000 civil service jobs from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office to Glasgow and East Kilbride.

Let us stop misleading the Scottish people. Let us have more Conservative MSPs in Holyrood after the next election, so that we can finally have a Government in Scotland who deliver for the United Kingdom and the Scottish people as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith]

I am grateful for the opportunity to perhaps correct if I was unclear. I accept that Brexit has happened. I gave up my seat in the European Parliament because of it; I wanted to come here to fight for Scotland’s place in Europe. There was a point in the December election where we could have had that argument. In the halcyon days, we were thinking about a hung Parliament—with a Labour Administration, with SNP support, and a second EU referendum—but I won Stirling with 51% of the vote and my party won Scotland with a massive vote, to a Parliament we do not want to be in, on a pro-EU platform. Because of events elsewhere, it was clear that Brexit was going to happen anyway. I accepted Brexit has happened in my first speech, so I have made that point. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. What I am trying to do is extend the transition period to avoid a disaster that Conservative Members are going to inflict on this House out of bone-headed ideology, and when the chickens come home to roost, I do hope they will be as accountable as we have been to the people of Scotland on those points.

I again urge the Minister, whom I have much respect for, on the shared prosperity fund. There has been much talk about the power grab. I see the eyes rolling on the Conservative Benches now, but it is a very concrete example. This was not a power that rested in Brussels. The European frameworks exist in order to empower national and local governments. This was a power that was entirely with the Scottish authorities. The proposal on the table now from the UK Government is to put those powers in the hands of the Scotland Office—a part of the UK Government—removing that budget and removing that competence from the Scottish authorities. If that is not a power grab, I will need to have a look at the dictionary the Conservative Members are working with because, in any objective sense, it is. The Minister can assure us now that I am wrong. I will happily be proven wrong. I will happily engage with what we can do with the shared prosperity fund in Scotland, but it must be as a matter of respect for devolution under the competence of the Scottish authorities. If it is not, it is a breach of trust, it is a breach of faith and it is a power grab.

As I say, the pain of Brexit or the pain that Brexit is causing could be worth it if the benefits were there to be seen, but beyond warm words and sentiment, and beyond slogans that do not stand analysis, we have not seen that. Let us be generous—I do try to be generous—and say that the one-year negotiating period was heroically ambitious. That was before covid. Covid has intervened and has taken the focus of all of our Governments and all of our public officials away, rightly, to a health emergency. Extending the transition period is not about fighting old battles. I am not in the business of fighting old battles. Extending the transition period can be done and will give us breathing space and certainty to allow our economy to recover from a health emergency that is turning into an economic emergency. To add a covid-inflicted disaster upon that because of Brexit would be flat lunacy.

I was struck by the Paymaster General’s previous comments. She is now not in her place, but I was struck when she used the phrase that we are now past the point whereby a request can be made. She said that some might argue it is impossible to apply for an extension. She is not here now, but I would happily give way to anyone on the Conservative Benches who can name anybody in Brussels who is of that view. Anyone—Berlin, Paris, Ljubljana? It is a matter of straightforward principle and pragmatism in Brussels that, if the UK applies for an extension, it will be granted. The EU has, at every stage of the process, accepted with regret the democratic choices of the United Kingdom. It will not engage in our internal discussion, so it is with regret that it accepts that an extension will probably not be applied for.

We have not heard any indication today that the UK Government will change course, but they should, and this is a plea from us to do so, because we can still change course. We must change course. This is not about old battles. I asked whether anybody in Brussels, Berlin or anywhere else shared the Minister’s view. How about Dublin? Speaking of Dublin, Ireland is an independent state in north-west Europe that has done quite well lately. With Norway, it was voted on to the UN Security Council. It has the EU Commissioner for Trade in the inestimable Phil Hogan, who is a very strong negotiator in trade deals—Government Members will want to watch that one. It also has the president of the Eurogroup in Paschal Donohoe. The international accolades just keep coming for Ireland, and that is all based on the solidarity, support and encouragement of 26 other EU member states that have its back against the former colonial power.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that Ireland managed to get itself on to the UN Security Council, but Scotland is a permanent member of the UN Security Council through being part of one of the most successful unions. Does his attitude not show that he actually wants to downgrade Scotland’s place in the world by making it a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council?

[Alyn Smith]

I am happy to engage with that point. I have spent a number of years on the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am now foreign affairs spokesman for my party. The UK is, of course, a P5 member, and Scotland is represented by virtue of that mechanism. I think that it could serve us better if we were an independent member of the UN and an independent member of the EU, working in concert with 27 of our closest neighbours, because I do not have any faith or trust in where the UK is going under the Conservative party. The Brexit process has proven us to be right.

I heard the point made earlier about the 2014 referendum. We do accept that that vote happened—we do accept that arithmetic reality. But a number of people voted no to independence on the basis of specific promises—promises that they cannot risk their European status, that we are a family of equals and a partnership of nations, that the UK is the only way to guarantee economic stability. All those promises and all that airy sentiment now look an awful lot more threadbare than they did, and no amount of bluster from Government Members will disprove that point.

Look at the recent results of votes in Scotland. Under a system where we do not make the rules, we won massively the majority of seats from Scotland in this House. Scotland is represented in this discussion by nobody from the Labour party and by a Minister who represents Milton Keynes. We have no territorial ambitions on Milton Keynes—the Minister can rest easy—but to say that it is part of Scotland is something of a stretch.

The legitimacy of this Government in the eyes of the people of Scotland is really something that Government Members need to have higher up their consciousness, because the people of Scotland are watching. The people of Scotland will have a choice at some point on whether independence in Europe is a better option than being stuck on an island run by the Conservative party. Ireland has shown us what independence in Europe actually looks like, and the Government are showing us what the UK will continue to offer Scotland. I think we have a better choice, and I believe that independence in Europe is coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I would have thought that, as a scrupulous member of that Committee, the hon. Lady would know that the death rate in care homes in Scotland is not actually higher than the death rate in care homes in England. That said, it is much higher than we would have liked, no doubt about it—it would have been much better for all if so many people did not suffer. I go back to the main point: there have been no covid deaths at all for over a week now in Scotland. It is quite clear that we are handling the virus much better, and yesterday there were only five new cases identified in the whole of Scotland.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but honestly that comment is beneath him. The population of Scotland is so much smaller than the rest of England that of course there would be more deaths in England than in Scotland. He should withdraw the accusation that his Government have done more than the UK Government on covid. It is based on population and the point he raises is not a very good one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Can I finally say congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker? You are where you belong and I am glad to see you there.

We are here all over again. The ability of SNP Members to focus on their narrow-minded, party interests at a time of national importance is becoming legendary. If there was ever a sight that shows why we must protect the Union, it was the vision of a Labour party that could not be bothered to show up, with SNP Members behind those Benches. If the Labour party ever has the opportunity to form the next Government, it will be at the price of a referendum on independence to get the SNP onside. Conservative Members do not back that at all.

The SNP has not changed much in not respecting referendum results. It lost the 2014 referendum, and yet it pursues that agenda, with no thought to getting on with the day job in Scotland. SNP Members lost the 2016 referendum, but they are now trying by any means necessary to thwart the will of the British people. This debate is once again a thinly disguised attempt by SNP Members to undermine democracy—nothing else. The irony of that is not lost on me. If they voted for a deal when they were offered one—three times—we would not be here today. Knowing them, however, we probably would be.

Like any good Unionist, I read the newspapers north of the border. In these difficult times, we all have to spend a few more hours at home, and humour plays an increasingly important role in making sure that we can all get by, so you can imagine my reaction, Mr Deputy Speaker, when browsing The National, I found the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) was quoted as saying that Scottish taxpayers were “footing the bill” as the UK prepared to leave the EU. Indeed, without a hint of irony, SNP Members are trying to claim that they would somehow save money by being out of the Union and part of the EU, when we know that public spending in Scotland is 17% higher than the UK average. Treasury figures, verified by the House of Commons Library, show that per head of population, Scotland receives £11,200; England, £9,200; and my constituents in Eastleigh, £8,600.

I will always lobby for resources for my constituency, but I accept that that difference is the price that my constituents pay because we are stronger together—and we are stronger together as one United Kingdom. We are stronger together culturally, with our shared history, and we are stronger together economically. It was this Government who introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has protected the income of 630,000 people in Scotland. It was the Government of the United Kingdom who have supported 146,000 self-employed people through the self-employment support scheme, and it was this Government—the United Kingdom Government—who have provided over £2.7 billion to the Scottish Government for rates relief, small business grants and grants for businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector.

We need to ensure that we are prepared for Brexit and that our borders are fit for purpose. That investment will help us to maximise the opportunity created by Brexit as we continue to trade with our European partners and to forge new and exciting trade deals across the world. While the SNP like to reject referendum results—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that it was a narrow gap, but I do not think that 10% is a narrow gap—I take the expression of my constituents’ will seriously. It is a shame that the SNP do not do that for their constituents. My constituents in Eastleigh voted to leave the European Union, and I will support the Government as we make good on our promise to leave the EU and seize the opportunities presented by global Britain. The SNP should focus on the day job to fix the lack of educational attainment that harms Scottish children; to fix their dire record in government and public service; and to stop the political gimmicks. We deliver; they delay. It is time to get Brexit done, and I will vote against the motion this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

He doesn’t. I do really feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. There is the one Scottish Labour Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who always has lots to say about the Union. He is not even here today—I would have thought that he might at least have turned up.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

Okay, for this last time.

[Paul Holmes]

Does it surprise the hon. Gentleman, as it has me, that, according to what I hear, the Labour party are actually on a one-line Whip? Does that not show that although we come from opposing sides of the argument, the Labour party do not take the future of Scotland seriously?

[Pete Wishart]

Well, they never really have. They are no longer a force in Scottish politics—they been well beaten into third place. But we do not really bother about the Labour party in Scotland, just as we are increasingly not bothering about the Conservative party, who we are now beginning to trounce once again.

Then there are the Liberals, none of whom have turned up. [Interruption.] No—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) may have turned up to make a speech, but she is not here for the wind-ups—which is rather discourteous, Madam Deputy Speaker, though I say so myself. She is not here, and neither are the other Scottish Liberals who made speeches today.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing the debate, and all Members who are members of the all-party parliamentary group for being here today. Having been in this Chamber for only four months, I am not as experienced as others in complicated tax arrangements, but, very quickly during my election campaign and during my surgeries, this issue has proven to be a huge worry for the many of my hard-working and honest constituents who run small businesses. For me, thankfully, this is not a debate that revolves around complicated tax issues. It is a debate that revolves around fairness and proportionality, and I think the Government have got that drastically wrong. That is where the Morse review has not gone far enough.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), I believe that everyone in our country must pay the taxes they owe—individuals, businesses, everybody. That is how a responsible society works. But the people this affects are not tax avoiders, so I have some concerns on behalf of my constituents about some aspects of the Government’s approach. I believe that it is my duty as a constituency MP to bring them up with Ministers.

Many constituents have come to see me at the surgery and have told me the severe pressure that this has put them under; the pressure of making payments and possible insolvency has, in some cases, caused the breakdown of marriages, physical exhaustion, and suicidal thoughts through no fault of their own whatsoever. I am also aware from my constituents that many of those who used some form of disguised remuneration scheme did so at the behest of financial professionals they had hired to advise them. Some were told that these schemes were HMRC compliant. Others were not even told that these schemes were tax avoidance and thought that they were normal procedure.

I want briefly to ask the Minister to consider the following points. Of course, any shortening of the time for which people affected are liable for these payments is welcome, but even after 10 years the payments over three years are too regimented and draconian. What thoughts has the Minister had about lengthening the terms? It is simply not fair of HMRC to impose the retrospectivity that follows from this review. As I have said, many people were advised by financial advisers and are now being penalised because of the late realisation and intransigence of HMRC. Does the Minister accept that that should not be a portent for any decision making on policy in this area? What steps is he taking to share the cost burden with the financial advisers who recommended these schemes? They are getting away scot-free.

Lastly, I want to raise the subject of HMRC. Even in normal times, it is not the most transparent Government Department, or the easiest to deal with; it is not known for its empathy or human nature. I really hope that the Government do not continue down this path, but if they do, it is vital that a bespoke, compassionate team be set up solely to deal with the vulnerable people in our constituencies who are affected by this issue.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

That is a gross understatement of HMRC’s lack of compassion. If we are to move forward, HMRC must give individuals who have suffered as a result of the loan charge situation certainty that there will be finality in the way the issue is dealt with.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. His point backs up mine. Any team that the Treasury sets up—and there should be one—to deal with people affected by the issue should treat them as people, not as numbers, which is unfortunately how HMRC has a track record of treating them.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the core points. Who is running the show here? Is it HMRC, or are the Government making sure that law on this matter is paramount? Does he not find it ironic that HMRC’s annual report this year says that HMRC wants a system that can

“be trusted and seen to be fair, with the right safeguards in place to protect customers”?

Does this case not show that it is falling woefully short of meeting that ambition?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely. This is not the only case of people being treated unfairly by HMRC. I really hope that the Minister listens to the concerns being expressed across the House, particularly about the issue under discussion. There is a wider point here about HMRC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, it has decided to charge people retrospectively although the situation arose through its negligence. Never again—I feel this strongly—should it be allowed to adopt retrospective measures to cover its failure to get its policies in order.

Lastly, the Minister needs to make it clear, hopefully today, that the people affected by this are victims. They are struggling after following advice given to them by independent tax experts. I hope that he will look at lengthening the repayment period, commit to dealing fairly with the people affected by this, and never allow this to happen again. Ideally, he should at the Dispatch Box this afternoon scrap the loan charges affecting so many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I am not only very concerned, but angry about some of these actions and what I have heard today about what HMRC is up to. I will speak more about that.

When constituents such as Fraser Kennedy and Jason Millington come to us to discuss this issue, three immediate things leap out at us. This has come up in the debate, including in a fantastic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). In this Parliament, we really need to deal with the relationship between an employer and a worker and their status in the workplace, because it really is time to end the bogus self-employment that we have heard about in this debate and in other examples. This needs to be addressed because what this issue has proven is that the wrong people are being targeted.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that when people first come across this issue, it looks like some sort of tax avoidance scheme, and I think it is perfectly natural for someone to think that when it is first explained to them. In the back of my head, when I first heard about it, I thought, “Well, maybe I will approach HMRC as an MP and try to get the same sweetheart deal that Google got only a couple of years ago,” when it paid the equivalent of 4% corporation tax. It seems that there is a disproportionate way that the people who have been caught up in the loan charge are being dealt with compared with other people who can get a sweetheart deal. That is how I thought I could try to deal with it, because if the answer is, “Yes, it is tax avoidance”, then the people HMRC should really be going after are those who contrived and promoted such schemes, because they are the ones who are directly responsible. They should be pursued and punished, and there should not be the blunt instrument that is being used for those caught up in the loan charge.

The third conclusion is, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, that there have been disproportionate actions from HMRC towards the individuals who have been caught up in this and how they feel. My constituent, Fraser Kennedy, sums it up well. His employer, Winchester, assured him and HMRC that it had paid all the tax and moneys, but he is still getting chased by HMRC. He feels bullied and harassed, and is suffering from stress and anxiety because of how it has handled the matter. He believed that it was settled a year ago, but he is still getting correspondence.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member’s speech perfectly sums up the problem for many of my constituents in Eastleigh. So many times, they get a letter and desperately try to get through to HMRC, but there is no constructive dialogue with HMRC. Does he agree that we need a better bespoke team to work with the people affected by these measures?

[Chris Stephens]

I entirely agree. The hon. Member’s constituents in Eastleigh and my constituents in Glasgow South West will have the same feelings about this matter and how they are being treated.

Jason Millington emailed me his thoughts last night, because he knew that the debate was today. He said that he when he was advised of the changes in 2016, he stopped immediately and put his affairs in order, totally unaware that HMRC was looking for back taxes. The requests that are being made are entirely unreasonable. The stress of not knowing how he can ever repay what HMRC is looking for is having a serious impact personally, and indeed professionally. I do not remember the tax avoiders such as Google complaining publicly that they were feeling bullied and harassed, or that they were under stress or feeling anxiety. It seems appropriate to point out, as many hon. Members have, that if the law on tax was changed in 2017, that is when the law should apply from. Going back to 2010 is entirely unreasonable. I support the motion.

Economic Update

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

We very much recognise that rent is a significant portion of most household bills, which is why the Housing Secretary will shortly be outlining measures in this regard.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

The measures announced by the Chancellor should be welcomed, but many of my constituents who are self-employed are worried because their cash flow has stopped now. When can we expect further announcements on how we are going to help these people? Will he consider extending the loans he has made available to businesses to cover this category of people?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

We are working closely with the representative organisations to understand those concerns, but it is important that we move forward, secure a free trade agreement and give certainty to small businesses. Their principal concern over the past year is a lack of progress, and it is our responsibility to remove that uncertainty and reach a clear position.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve the UK's national infrastructure.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sajid Javid)]

Infra- structure is a top priority for the Government, which is why we are publishing the national infrastructure strategy alongside the Budget. It will set out further details of the Government’s plan to increase investment to transform the UK’s infrastructure.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to vital national infrastructure, but does he agree that bespoke local infrastructure projects benefit the national infrastructure network by increasing connectivity? An example is the much-needed Chickenhall Lane road link in Eastleigh, for which my constituents have been waiting for over 20 years.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right. Local transport is the backbone of our community, which is why hopefully a welcome announcement will be made today on buses and cycling—a new £5 billion package on local transport. There is also the £150 million fund for smaller projects to deal with congestion hotspots. I would be pleased to consider the Chickenhall Lane link road in the next available competition.