Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Clearly, it is vital that British businesses that want to export can access the benefits of trade deals. However, the Government admitted to me in a written answer that they have not modelled the benefits of the CPTPP for our hard-pressed manufacturing businesses, so will the Minister tell me how many UK manufacturers will benefit from the rules of origin requirements under the CPTPP?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady will know that we do not count the number of companies specifically in our modelling. The modelling happens at a very high level—it is macro-level modelling. What she should know is that rules of origin will benefit people who export to that region, particularly auto manufacturers, who are very pleased about the deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Here in the UK, we are rightly proud of our high food standards, which include very low allowable levels of pesticide residues in the food we eat. However, organisations such as the Pesticide Action Network have warned that the Government could weaken standards on pesticides and other factors in a rush to sign free trade agreements in the Indo-Pacific region. Can the Government therefore confirm that new FTAs will not lead to a weakening of standards such as those on pesticide residues in food entering the UK?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We have repeatedly said that we are not lowering food standards at all for any free trade agreements that we are signing. That is something we have committed to, and we would want to reassure all of those who lobby on this issue that our trade negotiators have it very much at the forefront of their minds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I welcome the Secretary of State to her position on her first outing. The Government have committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but they continue to approve new licences for oil and gas projects. Projects approved before August 2023 could be protected from being stopped under a revised energy charter treaty. We know that other countries have been sued under the treaty when they tried to close down fossil fuel projects under their net zero commitments. How would the Government prevent that from happening in the UK under a revised energy charter treaty?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She should know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that those projects are consistent with our transition to net zero. She will know that gas is a transition fuel, so it is not possible for us to get to net zero by cutting off gas completely. We need to ensure that the explorations that are taking place are in line with our strategy; I believe that they are. Responsibility for the energy charter treaty lies with BEIS, but we lead on investment provisions and investor-state dispute settlements. We continue to see it as having an important role in these policies and the UK’s trade policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on providing sector-specific financial support to the aviation sector.

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

We speak to our colleagues on a regular basis about a range of matters. The Department for Transport is in regular contact with the Treasury regarding the challenging circumstances facing the aviation sector as a result of covid-19.

[Ruth Cadbury [V]]

Furlough ends in September, which is of no help to the aviation sector and airport communities, which will take months to recover even partially as we wait for the world to unlock. Many aviation businesses are on the edge financially, and they employ staff in safety-critical roles where there is a risk of skill fade if they cannot be supported. They are seeking longer-term support, as are communities such as ours in Hounslow, where tens of thousands of people depend on the airport for their livelihoods. Will the Treasury address the specific challenge of the aviation sector and airport communities well before the furlough scheme ends in September?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government recognise the challenging circumstances facing the aviation industry, which the hon. Member described. The industry can draw on the package of measures announced by the Chancellor, including not just the furlough scheme but schemes to raise capital, flexibilities with tax bills and employment support. The aerospace sector and aviation customers are being supported with over £11 billion made available through loan guarantees, support for exporters, the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility and grants for research and development. In addition, the renewed airport and ground operations support scheme, which the Chancellor announced in his Budget, will provide support for eligible businesses in England with their fixed costs for a further six months up to the equivalent of their business rate liabilities for the first half of 2021-22.

Covid-19: Ethnic Minority Disparities

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is one of the reasons we are discouraging the use of the term “BAME” when talking about these issues, as this conflates lots of different communities. We must be very specific about who we are talking about, and what their individual needs are. Various different initiatives will be tackled, based on the specific needs of community groups, and I am pleased that it looks as if there is successful vaccine take-up in her constituency.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

Will the Minister outline the application process for, and the distribution of, community champion funding? How will highly diverse boroughs like Hounslow which did not receive funding benefit from that investment in the future?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Our methodology drew on a wide range of data sources, including long-term data from the DHSC and Public Health England on covid-19 incidence, data on social integration, and evidence on the prevalence and specific support needs of, for example, disabled people in an area. The methodology was tested across the Government, and with many colleagues in the local government sector, before the funding was announced. To reach disproportionately impacted communities beyond those 60 areas, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has funded two voluntary community and social enterprises to carry out national communication and engagement activities, including health promotion and encouraging vaccine uptake.

We are trying to ensure that best practice is shared across local community areas. It is not just the presence of ethnic minority communities that means they are at risk—indeed, I spoke earlier about what places a specific individual at risk. We consider multiple factors, and those are what end up determining which communities get the funding. I assure the hon. Lady that her community will benefit, even if it does not get specific money under this scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

What steps she is taking in response to the findings in Public Health England’s report entitled “COVID-19: review of disparities in risks and outcomes”, published in June 2020.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

We are taking the findings of PHE’s report, “COVID-19: review of disparities in risks and outcomes”, which was published on 2 June, very seriously. The next steps are to fill the gaps in the report, which necessarily had some limitations. The Race Disparity Unit and the Department for Health and Social Care are working with me to do this. This vital work will help us to take appropriate, evidence-based action to address the disparities highlighted.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Given the delays between publishing the report and publishing the recommendations, and the likely delay now in implementing those recommendations, how do the Government propose to rebuild trust and confidence in their actions with black and minority ethnic groups and individuals?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe the hon. Lady is conflating two different reports. There was no delay in publishing the first report, which did not have recommendations. The second report was published by PHE only yesterday, and many of the recommendations are already in train. I refer her to the written ministerial statement that I laid yesterday, which should hopefully provide additional clarity on that.

Loan Charge

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will if I have time.

Evidence to our inquiry shows that HMRC was aware of these promoters, yet none has been investigated and prosecuted. Why not, and why have they not been chased?

There is a 45% non-refundable charge on all loans advanced during the period unless the individual agrees to pay up front a figure calculated by HMRC—completely opaquely—and regardless of whether any such tax was legally due at the time. It is going to have to be paid and is effective from tomorrow. Anyone who has ever been employed through such a structure could face a retrospective charge in the 2018-19 tax year, which is about to close, payable by January 2020. All potential liability—it could be for many years—will be rolled up into this tax year, whether or not someone knows what their liability is, or indeed whether or not they are even aware that they have a liability. That cannot be within the spirit of natural justice.

How do the people who know about it know? Many of our inquiry respondents were notified of the loan charge in late 2018—some as late as this year. That is wholly inadequate given the life consequences of these demands. Standard letters are going out indiscriminately to any individual who might have been employed by a company that might have undertaken a disclosed tax avoidance arrangement. Letters refer to closed tax years, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, even when the tax has been agreed and paid. Evidence shows that there is no standard format in letters and no evidence provided, even of the dates in the years being queried. By withholding this information, HMRC has failed in its duty of care to taxpayers who are unaware of their right to request disclosure. They face a greater retrospective penalty in a single year—this year—than might have otherwise been the case.

People’s belief that they were doing the right thing was partly based on a belief that the loan charge arrangements were not taxable. HMRC correspondence of 2006 stated that plans

“made by an…EBT…are not taxable under Sections 173 &174”

of the

“Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) 2003”.

Furthermore, there is the Rangers Supreme Court case, which remains the position in law. Individuals are not liable—their employers are—yet HMRC is misinterpreting the outcome of that case. We understand that HMRC has used behaviour change specialists in pursuing the loan charge, which may explain the aggressive and opaque nature of its communications. The regular use by HMRC of a phrase asking people to “put their tax affairs right” is clearly part of this strategy of forcing people to feel, and accept, guilt for wrongdoing. That is despite the fact that the arrangements they used were entirely legal at the time. There have also been a disturbing number of reports of individual HMRC officers telling taxpayers that they should apply for mortgages or loans, but not telling the lender that the money will be used to pay a tax bill. Why? Because that is contrary to tax law, of course.

Many of the taxpayers who submitted evidence to our inquiry highlighted the stress and anxiety that they have experienced as the direct result of the language and tone of HMRC communication. Individuals who believed that they were acting within the law told us that they have been made to feel like criminals. The all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge agrees: it is wholly inappropriate for a Government department to intimidate individuals into settlements through threats and labelling.

The issue has had two consequences. One is the feeling of criminality. We heard about the family who read out the father’s suicide notes; he had kept the information from them as he was too embarrassed. He was too embarrassed even to see a tax consultant or his accountant; he could not admit that he might have done wrong. He thought he was going to prison. In that example, his liability was well within his means; he could have afforded to pay. But he was made to feel like a criminal—a man who had never done anything against the law in his life.

The other consequence is the threat to the homes and businesses of those who are likely to be made insolvent. This issue will affect their and their family’s lives now and in the future. We are talking about amounts that are often unjustified, unquantified and unexplained.