Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive welcome of today’s news about inflation. He is right that it is welcome but we always need to keep an eye on it. I join him in thanking our farmers, who have played a pivotal role in helping food prices to come down. The supermarkets have a role in that area as well. He raises some points that are slightly outside the remit of the Bill, but I assure him I will continue to have conversations with ministerial colleagues and others, and I am sure he will as well. We always listen to the important farming community in this country, who do so much to create employment and provide us with food.

The Bill covers 24 different measures. I will not go through every single one of them, but want to focus on a few key areas. First, I turn to how the Bill rewards work. We all recognise the simple truth that work should pay. We understand how hard many people up and down the country work. This Government want to ensure they are recognised for that because that approach not only benefits individuals and families, but overall growth and the economy. As I mentioned, that is why we have already taken two Bills to cut national insurance through Parliament, but this Bill goes further.

A key measure in the Bill is to increase the high-income child benefit charge threshold from £50,000 to £60,000. In addition, the rate of the charge will be halved, so that individuals continue to receive child benefit until one household member earns £80,000, taking 170,000 families out of paying this tax charge. These changes are a well-earned reward for working families up and down the country and put pounds back into parents’ pockets.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

While the changes in the child benefit allowances are important, especially helping parents who want to get into work and have their children looked after, does the Minister accept that one of the biggest impacts of the Budget on people who are working is the way in which they are being dragged into higher tax rates because thresholds have not been raised? That is having a huge disincentive effect on working families.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, back in 2010, the tax-free allowance was, I think, £6,475. Actions taken by this Government since then have increased the tax-free allowance to more than £12,500, a significant real-terms increase, which means that take-home pay is higher than it otherwise would have been. When taken in combination with other measures, it is a really important move.

Furthermore, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to detract from the significant changes in national insurance, which have put money back into people’s pockets. We have eliminated by a third a whole category of taxation—national insurance—and that will help working people in this country as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is quite right to point out the dangers of Labour being in charge of finances and the impact that that is likely to have on tax, but does he have the humility to accept that tax is higher under this Government than it has been for decades?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I certainly have the humility to accept and recognise that. Taxes are higher out of the obvious and widely accepted necessity of paying for massive amounts of intervention because of the pandemic and in response to supporting families and businesses through the cost of living challenges. We make no apology for intervening to support lives and livelihoods to the extent that it was necessary. It was absolutely vital that we intervened because not doing so would have been a disaster for the UK economy. However, the general level of taxation, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, is much lower in the UK than in many other countries that also had to significantly increase taxes and Government intervention out of necessity in response to the pandemic. We have much lower levels of taxation than Germany, France, Italy and many other countries. As I said, we had high levels of taxation out of necessity, but we are now in a position to start reducing those levels of taxation out of policy intent and choice, and that is exactly what we are doing.

To conclude, this Finance Bill absolutely rewards hard work, supports our vital industries, boosts the housing market and continues to create a fairer, simpler and more modern tax system. It delivers on the Government’s commitment to prioritise economic growth and will ensure a brighter future for our country. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I have a couple of points to make to the Minister, and a couple of responses that the shadow Minister might be interested to hear. In response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the loan charge, the Minister said that he was not minded to accept an amendment, but would always listen. I like the Minister. He will be aware that the loan charge has created significant concerns and problems for people. He will be aware that the loan charge policy has been in place for a long time and has not made the progress anticipated initially. May I say to him that it is time to draw a deadline on that policy and for HMRC to find a different way to provide resolution and, may I say, relief to those affected?

[Sammy Wilson]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy has not only failed to bring in the revenue that the Government intended, but led to a number of people committing suicide because of the pressure put on them by HMRC?

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend has voiced the concern that I know will rest on the conscience of my hon. Friend the Minister, and he is right to add that. May I put a second conscientious point to the Minister—this point was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—which relates to the scoring for contaminated blood? That was not included in the Budget, which will have disappointed a considerable number of Members of Parliament from all parts of the House. It would be helpful if the Chancellor came forward with some view on that. Will my hon. Friend look at that?

Thirdly, will the Minister be encouraged by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and his analysis of the charges imposed on the Treasury by the Bank of England as a result of the quantitative tightening policies? The UK’s policies on quantitative tightening are exceptional. Few other central banks—many of which indulged in the bizarre quantitative easing policy 15 years ago, after the financial crash under the last Labour Government—do it, and it is now a real charge that has real effects on the real economy in the country. The exceptional way in which we are treating quantitative tightening charges—essentially, we take them on the books, the Treasury gets charged for it, and it has to go into the scoring that the OBR and others do—does not go on in other European countries. There is discretion on how it can be put across, and in the US the charges are absorbed but the Government are not charged. That is an important policy point, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would accept an amendment on that in Committee, although I think not.

Prosaically, or simply, HMRC has been in the headlines for not answering phone calls and for saying it would go on holiday. I am pleased that the Minister reversed that straightaway, and I know many taxpayers will be pleased about that. Many who will be looking to fill in their self-assessment forms will be surprised that they cannot download form SA100—they have to call HMRC to download a copy, whether or not they want to file it by paper. That seems a little odd, if HMRC’s phonelines are under pressure. Will the Minister, who has been responsive on points to date, look into that?

I will turn to the shadow Minister’s speech—I like him too. As he in his own mind “prepares for government”, he and his colleagues may wish to get a better grasp on reality. When he rightly talks about the importance of setting clarity for investment, it is important that those looking at investment think that those in charge of the public finances know what is going on. He talked about record tax rises under this Government. Let me ask him these questions. Did he disagree with funding of the furlough programmes? Did he disagree with the energy price support? Did he disagree with the increase in funding for the NHS? Did he disagree with record numbers of police officers? If he did not disagree with any of those, he would recognise, if he had a grasp on reality, that he would have to fund those through increased taxation or increased—[Interruption.] He has an answer, so would he like to come in? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought he had an answer.

HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I mentioned a few moments ago, there has been a trial closure of telephone services. The recently reported results show that the trial worked quite well. As we heard overnight and are hearing again in the Chamber today, the important challenge is that the confidence behind that has not been effectively communicated. The reassurances that I personally received on what will happen to help those who are not able to access online services—including the disabled, those without digital access and those with particularly complex cases—were not communicated. That is important to making sure that, as HMRC moves forward and policy is developed, we move at a pace with which people are comfortable.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I hope that HMRC’s screeching U-turn is a result of the Minister’s action. If it is, I congratulate him on stepping in so quickly. Does he agree that, at a time when more and more people are being dragged into complex tax returns because of fiscal drag, when 1 million people had their calls to HMRC unanswered in January and when a record number of people are putting in their tax returns late because they cannot get information, HMRC should not have adopted such a policy? Will the Minister give us an assurance that this is not temporary and that whatever help income tax payers require to pay their tax will be made available?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on the latter point. As I have outlined several times today, I think we can all recognise that the move to digital, where appropriate, will relieve the burden on the people answering telephone calls and on some other services, allowing them to deliver precisely the end goal that he describes. Simplifying the tax system is a goal of Government policy. I gave an example of people on high incomes with relatively simple tax affairs—those who pay through PAYE, for example—and we are trying to remove as many of those people as possible from self-assessment. I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

Loan Charge

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House is deeply concerned that HMRC has confirmed the suicides of 10 people facing the Loan Charge and that, despite the Morse Review, thousands face unaffordable demands, with the risk of further suicides; notes that HMRC has also confirmed 24 cases of serious harm, including 13 suicide attempts; believes that many people who used schemes were victims of mis-selling, and that in other cases employers and agencies pushed people into using them, yet HMRC is demanding all disputed tax from scheme users, not from those who recommended, promoted and operated the schemes; further notes that section 44 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 deems agency workers to be taxable as employees of those agencies and that HMRC should have collected tax from agencies at the time; criticises HMRC transferring the liability to individuals despite its own failures; observes that HMRC is pursuing open enquiries for schemes before 2011 despite the Morse Review; also notes that HMRC is seeking additional payments from those who settled; further believes that the Morse Review was limited and not genuinely independent of HM Treasury and HMRC; highlights the resolution proposed by tax professionals; calls on the Government to work with all parties to find a fair resolution and for a full independent investigation, including into the conduct of HMRC; and believes that taxpayer rights must be enshrined in law and enquiries closed after four years if HMRC fails to act.

Before we start the debate, on behalf of my party, I pass on our condolences to the family of Tony Lloyd. He served for a short time as the shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. I always found him to be very courteous and well informed, and he wanted to be well informed. He asked the right questions and was always prepared to engage, even though he often did not agree with some of the stands we took. He was always happy to engage with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and we pass on our condolences to his family.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am slightly concerned that there is something wrong with the sound. Let us start again.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the point I was making about Tony Lloyd was picked up. I want to pass on the condolences of our party to his family, and I pay tribute to the work he did as shadow Minister for Northern Ireland.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. It is a timely debate and I know that the many thousands of people across the United Kingdom who have been affected by the loan charge in a very detrimental way will be glad that it is being considered in this House. Over the past two weeks, we have been looking at the dramatic fallout of the Horizon scandal at the Post Office and, quite rightly, we have been focusing on what belatedly can be done to repay and to deal with that great injustice. I say to the House—I do not think that I am being overdramatic when I say this—that we are looking at another Horizon scandal, and the parallels are frightening.

First, because of the actions of a Government Department, 10 people in the United Kingdom have committed suicide and many others have attempted to take their own lives because of the pressure they were put under by officials and by statute passed by this Parliament. We have heard time and again in evidence to the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group of the disruption and disaster this has caused in many families.

Secondly, despite the fact that alarm bells should be ringing in the Treasury, no action has been taken. Indeed, some Ministers have even refused to meet the group. Others have simply put out the party line and regurgitated the excuses of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for what is happening.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seems to be the case yet again that people acting in good faith are being prosecuted and pursued, whereas the people who absolutely knew what they were doing are getting away scot-free?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is a point I want to come to.

We are seeing that once again Ministers are turning a blind eye, and these lessons should be learned. Apart from two examples of Ministers that I can think of, one of whom—a former Minister—is present, Ministers turned a blind eye for years. We then had the result, but it was not until an ITV programme brought this matter to the nation as a whole that action was taken.

We have had attempts by HMRC to justify what it has been doing. In the past, postmasters and postmistresses who had unblemished records for years were accused of being thieves. We are now being told that the people who HMRC is chasing today are—to use its words—“serial tax evaders”. Minister, I have to say that when I read the letter that you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he does not address the Minister directly, but through the Chair.

[Sammy Wilson]

When I read the letter that the Minister sent to the joint chairs of the all-party group, he started by once again reminding us that

“As you are aware, disguised remuneration schemes are contrived tax avoidance arrangements that seek to avoid Income Tax and National Insurance contributions”.

It is almost like a warning: “Don’t be taking up these cases, because these are bad people that you are talking about.” That is exactly parallel to what we found with the Horizon scandal.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I agree with how the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the debate. He mentioned the scale of how HMRC is going after people caught up with the loan charge. Is that not in stark contrast with how multinational companies are entering into sweetheart deals with HMRC, such as Google and Vodafone?

[Sammy Wilson]

Indeed, it is, and I will come to the issue of HMRC chasing the individuals, rather than the promoters.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me just make this point: it seems that HMRC is going after those whom it regards as easy targets. The promoters of the scheme have not paid one penny, despite the fact that they have made hundreds of millions of pounds from the schemes, have mis-sold them and have disappeared when there is any attempt to get at them. The promoters are not being pursued and, indeed, HMRC has admitted that it does not intend to chase after the promoters, and yet individuals are being harassed to the point where many of them have taken their own lives.

[Mr Dhesi]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on having secured today’s debate, especially given that at least 10 people have sadly committed suicide. It is of course essential that disguised remuneration schemes are dealt with fairly and effectively, but why does he think the Government and HMRC have not actively pursued the architects and promoters of the scheme, rather than the victims who have been led into the schemes?

[Sammy Wilson]

The answer is easy: the victims are easy targets. They are the ones who are easy to chase. The promoters of the schemes have all kinds of means of defence. Many disappeared when they realised that they may well be pursued. This is the baffling thing, and maybe the Minister can explain it: if these schemes are designed as contrived ways of avoiding tax, why is HMRC not pursuing even some of the new promoters who are establishing themselves today and who will have disappeared by tomorrow, once it is seen that their schemes are being challenged?

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy on this occasion. I share his comments about Sir Tony Lloyd, who was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the regulation of promoters. Where is the regulation of those individuals? This is an ungoverned space. Surely, as they are trying to sell financial service products, they should at least come under the control of the Financial Conduct Authority. We have to not just focus on what has happened in the past, but look at what is happening now, where innocent people are being exploited.

[Sammy Wilson]

I intend to come on to that point.

The parallels, as I say, are frightening. I ask myself this question and the Minister should be asking it of himself, too. In one, two, four, five or 10 years’ time, will we see the same embarrassment and see Ministers who parroted the Department’s line being asked the question, “Why did you not raise the alarm at the time? Why were the explanations not challenged, and why were the calls for help not heeded?” That should be a salutary warning to Ministers.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is very unusual that I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman says—[Interruption.] I am being generous. The simple truth is that HMRC failed to police this issue. Many people made HMRC aware of their involvement in the schemes and it took HMRC years to get back to them or even to look into the issue. That is one of the real crimes here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees with everything I have said today. I think he has even dressed to show that agreement, with his red, white and blue outfit, and I appreciate that very much. Maybe he has become a Unionist as well—even for a day, that would be something of a miracle.

Let us look at the role of HMRC and the approach it has taken. It has been rightly pointed out that there should have been much more supervision within HMRC of what was going on. HMRC is now saying that it believes that many of the people who used payroll loan schemes should have been paying pay-as-you-earn, but at the time HMRC was not challenging the schemes, and the promoters were able to say they were legitimate. For years, people were acting in the belief that they were legitimate and were no risk. And here is the ultimate irony: HMRC employed people on contracts to do work for it, knowing that those people were being paid in that way, and never challenged it. That being the case, we have to ask what the level of supervision was, or whether HMRC changed its mind and then, having done so, decided to go after the individuals who had undertaken those schemes.

Some people will argue, “Well, it’s their own fault. After all, they knew that when they went into one of these schemes their tax liability may have been reduced. If people did that, they took that risk.” The fact is that many people did not volunteer to go into those schemes. Many people were forced into them. Some people were put into those schemes and did not even know they were in them. As far as they were concerned, they were employed by a contractor and their tax was being deducted, and they only found out later on that that was not the case.

By the way, this was not rich people employing fancy accountants to tell them how to avoid their tax. Many of the people caught up in the schemes were ordinary workers—nurses, teachers, cleaners—and some were people who wanted to set up a company and, because of the flaws in IR35, this was the only way of dealing with their tax affairs. People did not always volunteer to go into the schemes. One of the ways we discovered that HMRC was involved in this was that one lady came to us and said, “I was employed by an IT consultancy, the contractor was working for HMRC and the only way I could get the job was to be paid through one of these schemes. I did not particularly want to, but I wanted the work, so I had to enter into the scheme.”

HMRC, apparently, was quite happy for that contractor to pay its workers in that manner. In many cases, if people wanted to work, they were forced into these kinds of schemes. For years, although it was quite clear that there was an employer-employee relationship and they were under the direction and supervision of a company, they were treated as if they were separate stand-alone employees or individual self-employed people who could pay tax in that way.

The result was, of course, that when it was decided that the schemes were not tax compliant and there were years and years of back tax, Ministers were persuaded to introduce the loan charge in the Finance Act 2017. It was very convenient for HMRC to have that arrangement in place, because using the loan charge enabled it to decide what tax an individual was liable for and people could not challenge it in the normal way tax disputes can be dealt with, through either tribunals or courts. That was ruled out for them. In many instances, HMRC did not even have to explain how the tax bill was reached. If people do not have any redress to a court or tribunal, they really have no chance of negotiating whether or not the tax they have been deemed liable for is a liability and a correct liability.

Added to that was the fact that many employers saw the schemes as an advantage, because they could employ people without paying employment taxes or having to deal with pensions or holiday pay. That is why many employers forced individuals to be paid in that way. Those who argue, “Look, these people tried to avoid paying tax, so slap it up them now, they have reaped the consequences and they should just grin and bear it.”. should bear in mind that thousands of people are affected by this because they were impotent to stop that method of payment being used and were told by the promoters that it was all compliant and that there was no risk. In fact, 93% of those in the schemes were assured there was no risk and that they were compliant.

Indeed, they probably were compliant until, in later years, HMRC decided they were not compliant. People were left with tax investigations going back to 2010, which have resulted in many of them finding it impossible to pay. I want to mention a couple of case studies, because the confusion in HMRC made it very difficult for people to settle. HMRC did not seem to have the capacity to tell people. In one particular case, an individual was told after six years, “You owe £91,000.” He wanted to settle rather than be put in the loan charge. He was told, despite the fact that that was not in the criteria, “We don’t believe you can afford to pay £91,000 on the terms you have given.” So no settlement was granted and he was put in the loan charge, and the man who could not afford to pay £91,000 was then hit with a bill of £124,000. He could not afford to pay £91,000 in a settlement, but he was pushed into a loan charge where he had to pay £124,000.

We have the back charges, tax years that people thought were closed have been reopened, the confusion and some people now have to pay more in tax than they actually earned. HMRC does estimates; I think one person was told, when an explanation was sought of why they owed so much, that it was because everybody else paid that amount—and of course there is no redress.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing such an important debate to the Chamber. I have been contacted by several constituents who have described themselves as victims of this situation. Does he agree that those people who are being asked to pay what my constituents describe as incomprehensible amounts of money, while their employers and the people who provided those schemes are not being pursued for one penny, are victims, but are assumed to be criminals? Does he agree that they must be treated as victims and that this must be covered by a truly independent inquiry?

[Sammy Wilson]

That brings me to the very last point— I promise it is my last, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply list the points and other people can take them up and expand them later on. There are a number of issues the Minister must consider. First, while I have no evidence of this, we have been told that HMRC officials, just as Post Office officials were, are on commission for the money that they bring in through the loan charge. The Minister must confirm whether that is the case, because if so, it would act as a huge incentive for them to pursue individuals relentlessly.

Secondly, I trust that the Minister, in his new position, will challenge the Department’s lines on this matter. We need a greater challenge than we have had so far. Thirdly, I believe that the loan charge needs to be repealed because it is not fit for purpose and is having a detrimental effect. Fourthly, the employers and promoters must be pursued. Under the law, they were responsible for collecting tax from the employees. That is the basis on which tax demands are now being made of people—that they were employees, not self-employed.

Fifthly, of course we recognise that the Government have to collect tax when it is due, but the current method of pursuing this will not bring in tax revenue because people are going bankrupt. A group of professionals has proposed that the Government could claim back an affordable proportion of the tax that is owed. They would get at least some tax revenue out of it while stopping this relentless pursuit of individuals. In the longer run, I think we need a Bill of rights for taxpayers, and for tax fairness to be built into legislation, but that is a matter for a longer debate.

There are people who are suffering today because they are being battered by the cosh that HMRC officials are using on them to extract money that they do not have and which many of them do not believe they owe. I ask the Minister to grasp this nettle and ensure that we do not have another Horizon scandal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As colleagues can see, this is a very well-subscribed debate, with another debate to follow. In order to give equal time to Back Benchers throughout the afternoon, my advice—I would rather not put a time limit on—is that colleagues stick to about seven minutes. I am sure that Greg Smith will lead the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

That is another important point to which I will come in a moment. I will now make some progress before I take further interventions, because I fear that otherwise I may ruin my responses.

As I said, the way in which we recover tax owed is important, including the interactions that individuals have with key bodies such as HMRC. The Government recognise that there were areas where the impact of the original loan charge was disproportionate to its aims. We have listened to concerns raised by hon. Members in the years since the loan charge was announced, and I have had conversations with HMRC about how it has, for example, endeavoured to improve the tone of communication with impacted individuals.

Changes in approach were also made following Lord Morse’s review, about which I have heard many comments today. Many people may not be aware, but in September 2019, the Government asked the former Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office, Lord Morse, to lead an independent review of the loan charge policy and its implementation. Lord Morse had full discretion over how the review was run, who he consulted and the recommendations made. That consultation included the APPG and many of the people in the Chamber today.

Following the review, Lord Morse recommended notable changes to the policy, and the Government accepted 19 of his 20 recommendations. Those changes benefit about 30,000 people and meant that the loan charge would apply only to outstanding loans made on or after 9 December 2010, rather than April 1999. That was the date when the Government announced anti-avoidance legislation that put beyond all doubt that the schemes were taxable—a very important date. The loan charge would also not apply to outstanding loans made in any tax years before 6 April 2016 where a reasonable disclosure of the use of a tax avoidance scheme was made to HMRC, but HMRC did not take action—again, some have made that point today. Taxpayers were also given additional flexibility in the way they pay in line with their individual circumstances, but Lord Morse was clear that the loan charge was necessary and in the public interest, and should remain in force.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that HMRC officials helped to service the Morse review, and restricted its grounds and parameters? The original of that review has not been disclosed, and we do not know how it was changed in the meantime. There are great doubts about whether or not the Morse review was ever an independent review, and ever came to conclusions that would have dealt with the issues and the unfairness we have been discussing today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before the Minister replies, I do want to say that I have given him more time than would normally be allocated for a Backbench Business debate. Several colleagues have tried to intervene, but do be aware that we have another important debate to follow. I am sure the Minister will be cognisant of that fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Since time is short, I will not go through all the speeches, but I thank Members for taking part and for the powerful speeches they have made. There are two points that I will take away. First, there is the frustration, fear and powerlessness that many of our constituents feel in the face of oppressive Government bureaucracy, and the pursuit of those individuals by people who are not and currently cannot properly be held to account. Secondly, to repeat what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, I hope that we will not be sitting here in four years’ time finding out that, although we had this debate, we heard platitudes from the Minister and there was no action. I do not want to take part in a debate similar to the one we have taken part in today. I think it is the duty of the Minister and the duty of Parliament to hold those who have this power to account and to make sure that it does not continue to be abused.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House is deeply concerned that HMRC has confirmed the suicides of 10 people facing the Loan Charge and that, despite the Morse Review, thousands face unaffordable demands, with the risk of further suicides; notes that HMRC has also confirmed 24 cases of serious harm, including 13 suicide attempts; believes that many people who used schemes were victims of mis-selling, and that in other cases employers and agencies pushed people into using them, yet HMRC is demanding all disputed tax from scheme users, not from those who recommended, promoted and operated the schemes; further notes that section 44 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 deems agency workers to be taxable as employees of those agencies and that HMRC should have collected tax from agencies at the time; criticises HMRC transferring the liability to individuals despite its own failures; observes that HMRC is pursuing open enquiries for schemes before 2011 despite the Morse Review; also notes that HMRC is seeking additional payments from those who settled; further believes that the Morse Review was limited and not genuinely independent of HM Treasury and HMRC; highlights the resolution proposed by tax professionals; calls on the Government to work with all parties to find a fair resolution and for a full independent investigation, including into the conduct of HMRC; and believes that taxpayer rights must be enshrined in law and enquiries closed after four years if HMRC fails to act.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me say first of all that I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. It is good to see that, at long last, the light has come on and he has realised that, “You cannot tax your way to growth,” and that some of the wrong policies that were followed by him, and by the Prime Minister when he was in that post, are now being reversed.

All the economic evidence shows that the more you tax people the less growth you will have, and the more you tax businesses the less money you will have to invest, and therefore you will have low levels of growth. I know that a lot of people have spent a lot of time criticising the Chancellor today, but I am pleased that a sinner has come to repentance. There should be great rejoicing about the fact that this Damascus road experience in the Treasury is now going to bear some fruit in our country. The models contained in many studies conducted by, for instance, the Cardiff macroeconomics research group, the Centre for Brexit Policy, and the Growth Foundation have already shown that a low-tax economy can benefit in terms of growth, which then helps to increase tax revenues, reduce debt and finance public services. It is a virtuous circle.

There are some measures that I particularly welcome, including some of the tax changes. It is good to see a reduction in national insurance contributions, especially at a time when the OBR is forecasting that GDP growth per head will rise by only 0.7% and inflation will rise by 5.1%. While those figures show that the cost of living problems will continue for ordinary individuals, it is good for them to have some of their own money to keep or spend, enabling them to pay those higher prices. I also welcome the corporation tax allowance. Again, this is targeted not just to give companies profits to distribute to shareholders but, more importantly, to incentivise them to invest. That targeted way of reducing corporation tax is important.

I also welcome the business rates commitment, although I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has paid close attention to what has been said about the importance of keeping business rates low, because one of the suggestions being made around Northern Ireland at present is that, as he has some responsibility for bringing budgets forward due to the Executive not being in operation, business rates might be one of the areas where he could save some money. I hope we do not have a policy of the Government in London saying that reducing business rates is important while the Minister in Northern Ireland says, “Oh well, it’s a different situation here.”

I would point out, however, that despite all these tax cuts, there are tax increases coming down the way for businesses. On green taxes, the Government have made much of wanting to try to reduce the cost of their net zero policies. The OBR forecasts suggest that environmental taxes are going to soar to £20 billion, that emissions trading taxes will go up by 50% in the next year and that environmental levies will be up 100% by 2026. That is a burden on businesses, and of course the planning policies that are being introduced are simply to allow for the expensive roll-out of the grid due to net zero policies.

I also want to mention the fact that there are Barnett consequentials in this statement for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland are meant to be about £185 million, but none of that is likely to be spent in Northern Ireland even though these measures were designed to promote growth and help to expand the economy. They will be taken back. We know for certain that some will be taken back by the Treasury to repay the overspend that occurred as a result of the incompetence of the Sinn Féin Finance Minister who oversaw a budget overspend in Northern Ireland. This is happening in a week when Northern Ireland has been denied money from the levelling-up fund as well.

I hope that the Chancellor will listen to the arguments from Northern Ireland and from the Fiscal Council that, despite the claims being made, Northern Ireland is actually underfunded in relation to Scotland and Wales, because need is not taken into account. On top of that, when money is allocated in statements such as these, it is not even made available in Northern Ireland. The Government cannot ignore this issue if they want to bring up the level of growth in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the fact that the Government are going to encourage people to get into work. That should not be regarded as some kind of bullying tactic. It should be seen as important for those people who are unemployed. Whatever their reason for being unemployed, they will be encouraged to get back into work and make a contribution, and of course raise their own self-esteem as well.

We also welcome the triple lock on pensions. When we had some influence in this House, we made it a condition of working with the Government that the triple lock be maintained, and I am glad that that has continued to be the case, especially at a time when the cost of living is increasing so much. Pensioners on fixed incomes require the support that the triple lock is providing.

I welcome the fact that the Government are now turning around, and I look forward to more tax reductions. As other Members have pointed out, people have been dragged into a higher tax rate as their wages have gone up, and some find that it is no longer worth their while working. Let us take a single parent on a £50,000 income who needs to pay for childcare if they want to go out to work. Some find that, by the time they have paid their childcare costs, their marginal rate of taxation is nearly 68%. If we are looking for a supply-side measure, there is one. We could release a lot of skilled people into the workforce by ensuring that their childcare costs do not prohibit them from working.

Only time will tell, but I hope that the measures taken today will have the impact that the Government hope they will have, because that will be good for the economy, for individuals and for public services.

Autumn Statement

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we want to do everything possible to make our tourism and retail industry competitive. We want to encourage international visitors. We changed policy on this issue a year ago because it cost around £2.5 billion a year and we did not think we could afford to continue it, but we are looking again at the numbers in the light of the most recent data and we can see what has happened to comparative shops in Paris and Milan. We will review this to see if it is still that expensive, and I hope that it is not.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Many of the measures in the statement today will have spending consequences that will apply to England and Wales. I welcome many of them, because they are growth measures, such as getting the long-term unemployed and long-term sick into work, helping the creative industries and supporting business rates. Will the Chancellor confirm that those measures will be subject to Barnett consequential payments, and if they are, will the freeze on Barnett consequential payments to Northern Ireland apply?

Draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. The statutory instrument we are debating may seem very flimsy, but it is important in so far as it is part of the jigsaw that has now been devised to rewrite the map of this country and to remove Northern Ireland from it. The way in which the Windsor framework has gone through to date has caused immense anger and political instability back in Northern Ireland. We have had a 90-minute debate in the House on one part of it, which we were then told accepted the whole framework, and now we have this today. We have seen the Government so anxious to push it through because, as we will see once we start examining it, this statutory instrument puts another block in the barrier—the border—between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government’s way of making sure it goes through is to carry out a purge of their own party. I am glad to see that those who were purged escaped the gulag and are here tonight to raise their voice in defiance.

Mr Pritchard, given the enormity of the issue, the way in which it has been handled and the perception that it will create of the democratic process in this House—the depths to which the Government will stoop—I believe that it is important that you pay heed to the points that have been made: the papers were not available; Members feel that they have been harassed out and removed from their positions because they wish to express a point of view; and the legislation will be given the most cursory scrutiny. I believe that it is important, and it is a heavy burden on your shoulders to ask yourself: given what has happened, can this Committee proceed and have any integrity at the end of it?

[The Chair]

Mr Wilson, your point has been noted by the Chair and will be fed back to Mr Speaker, and the Government Whips are listening. You refer to me. When it comes to this position of Chair and whoever sits in the Chair, the House convention, “Erskine May” and the rules and procedures of this House are greater than one individual, however flawed or not flawed the person who sits here, so this is not a matter for me. Whoever sits in the Chair is rightly guided and protected, as Members are, by those who have gone before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

May I finish the point, please? We need to ensure that Northern Ireland is not being used as a back door into the EU. I am coming at this matter not necessarily from the perspective of being particularly mindful of what may or may not happen in the single market—I do not know whether I am allowed to say that, but there we go—but because I do not want communities in Northern Ireland to be facing these pressures. I look across the room to those who know far better than I, but I am very conscious and have some small understanding of just how those pressures have been withstood valiantly in the past by communities in Northern Ireland. We want to do everything we can to support them in that and to ensure that they can continue to thrive.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am bemused by the Minister’s explanation. If she is concerned about hazardous substances, invasive species and the other things that are mentioned in the explanatory memorandum being transferred by post from GB to Northern Ireland, is she not also concerned about them being transferred in parcels from London to Scotland and London to Wales? If the regulations are all about protecting markets, why are the Government singling out Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

This appears rather a flimsy instrument, but when one reads through it, it is clear that it is dynamite. It blows apart the promise made that the Windsor framework ensures we remove any sense of a border in the Irish sea. In fact, this legislation will ensure that the border is deepened, made higher and cemented in place, and some of the temporary arrangements in the protocol will now be made permanent. Any change to them will be made not by legislation in this House but on the basis of whether the EU is prepared to change its legislation. In effect, once these regulations are passed, we become totally subject to the EU, amending article 7 and changing the rules about what are legal and what are illegal goods going into Northern Ireland and being obliged then to put in place the necessary border provisions. This does not protect the Union. I know that the Minister had a hard job today, and she repeated almost ad nauseam “Oh, the Windsor framework is better than the protocol.” The fact of the matter is that the instrument is only one piece of the jigsaw that will further remove Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Let us just look at the draft regulations. Why are they necessary? Because there are things that cannot be done by HMRC and Border Force under existing legislation. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that certain things that currently cannot be done need to be done. Why do they need to be done, and how do we ensure that they will be done? The draft regulations make it quite clear that Border Force and HMRC need to be able to carry out searches and interference on goods moving from GB into Northern Ireland, which they currently cannot do for movements within the United Kingdom.

The way in which we do that is by treating Northern Ireland as a foreign country. That is why not once, but six times in this short piece of legislation, we read that “GB to Northern Ireland” is added to regulations that currently refer only to foreign goods. Northern Ireland is effectively being treated as if it were a country that is foreign to the rest of the UK, and therefore the requirements and arrangements can be put in place for HMRC and Border Force to interfere with postal arrangements, which previously they could not do. Of course, you cannot import or export within your own country, so you change the definition in order to ensure that goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland are regarded as exports. We are now lumped in with foreign countries; indeed, references to the UK have now been changed to GB. I do not care what the Minister says about protecting the Union and not trying to redraw lines. In anybody’s definition, it amounts to Northern Ireland now being treated as a foreign country.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have seen Northern Ireland treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom in UK legislation. Is that the right hon. Gentleman’s understanding as well? It is quite an alarming signal.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the reasons why I say this is dynamite, because it exposes the lie being peddled at present that the Windsor framework actually cements us into the United Kingdom. It does not; it pushes us further out.

The second point I want to make is that businesses have been kept in the dark. In fact, the scrutiny Committee pointed out that many businesses do not know what the arrangements are, and the Government have not even been able to give an answer on what the new arrangements are going to be. What will they entail? What provision will there be? The Minister argues that there will be no effect and that, if anything, be better for person-to-person parcels. She says that there will be no effect on business to consumers and that there will be some effect on business to business. The truth of the matter, though, is that once this legislation is passed, the EU will have total control over what movements need to be checked, and our Government will have no say about what happens in Northern Ireland.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has already been diversion of trade away from GB into Northern Ireland, and is he worried that the draft regulations will create a lot more diversion of trade away from GB?

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: that is the problem. In the absence of detailed knowledge about what the new arrangements will be, businesses will simply turn their back on Northern Ireland. I spoke to a constituent today who wanted to buy a mattress from Argos. Although Argos clearly brings goods into Northern Ireland, that was obviously inconvenient for it and it simply said, “We don’t sell mattresses to Northern Ireland any longer.” That is exactly what is happening. Even if the Minister is correct, the threat that there will be different arrangements for taking goods and postal packages into Northern Ireland will discourage businesses from entering into those kinds of arrangements. We are already seeing the diversion of trade.

The Government’s argument is that the draft regulations improve the situation, but actually, they do not. If we had stopped even with the provisions of the protocol, the grace periods would have prevented this from happening. It does not happen at present. If the Government really want there to be no interference, why not stick with the grace periods? Why not make it clear that the regulations are not needed? There has been no leakage during the grace periods, and there is no evidence that hazardous goods and so on are moving into the EU. Why did the Government not take that stance? Why are the Government still not taking that stance? There would then be no need for the regulations.

[Sir James Duddridge]

I did not really understand the grace period, although I read about it. Does it refer to Brexit and the pre-protocol period, or is it something slightly more technical dealing with parcels?

[Sammy Wilson]

It was recognised that not even the infrastructure was in place to deal with all the parcels that come from GB to Northern Ireland. It was also known that, politically, this would create a huge storm, so a concession was made. The Government simply said, “It is impossible for us to implement the protocol, so we’re not going to implement that bit of it,” and the EU accepted that, so why has that situation not been left to pertain? The protection of the grace periods has now been removed, and we are introducing legislation that gives the EU the ability to say what are licit and illicit goods.

The Minister said that we do not need to worry, but we are told that one of the reasons this legislation is necessary now is that there are concerns about goods that affect the ozone layer, and that invasive species might be transferred, so we need protections. What happens if, in the future, the EU says, “People have found a way around this. They have decided that they can send those things from Sammy Wilson to somebody else in Northern Ireland”? Can the EU then use that as an argument for expanding the parcels regulations and demanding that parcels that go from one person to another be inspected too?

I asked a businessperson today, “How many of your goods do you expect to go through the green lane and be exempt? How many are business-to-business goods that are exclusively for consumption in Northern Ireland?” He said, “We don’t even know, because there has been no assessment of the kinds of parcels that are being sent at present. We have to assume that about 75% of parcels will have to go through the red lane.” I asked him, “What does that mean in terms of delays and costs?” I was told that, currently, the costs for goods that go through the full process from England through Dublin are higher than the freight costs themselves; the process used to take two days, but it now takes five days. We can see immediately how businesses in Northern Ireland will be affected by this change.

The Minister cannot run away from the arguments. First, this legislation undermines the Union; secondly, it will be costly to business; thirdly, even now the Government cannot tell businesses what new arrangements will be put in place; and, fourthly, there is no guarantee that the EU, when it has control through these regulations, will not use them in a way that the Government do not expect. That is why I believe that these regulations are flawed. They are not needed, they are a surrender to the demands of the EU, and they change the nature of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK.

[Adam Afriyie]

I am very much enjoying listening to the right hon. Gentleman,, and I thank him for allowing me one last intervention. Does he have any concerns about the power of the European Union to change these regulations—going way back to the Act of Union, not just the current regulations?

[Sammy Wilson]

They do. Even the explanatory notes make it quite clear that this will be subject to the EU still abiding by article 7 of the protocol. If the EU decides to say, “Look, article 7 isn’t working”—for whatever reason, maybe people are bypassing it—they can change it, and we do not have any say at that stage. We have handed control over the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland to a foreign entity.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman, as a former Whip, knows that the timetable is set in another place, not by me as the Chair. I made it quite clear what time these proceedings would conclude. Sammy Wilson, if you want to continue, that is fine, and you can use the whole time, but if Members of the Committee want to hear from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, briefly, and then from the Government Minister responding to some of the points raised in the debate, that is entirely up to them. The question will be put at 21 minutes past.

[Sammy Wilson]

I was just giving way, Mr Pritchard, and then once I have, I will sit down.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The right hon. Gentleman was outlining the fact that this will be subject to EU regulations—article 7 of the protocol. Would the celebrated brake in the Windsor framework be able to be applied to the legislation, in his understanding?

[Sammy Wilson]

No, it would not, because the brake itself is totally ineffective. We have already had a huge debate on that in the past. With that, I will sit down, as I understand that there are people who wish to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is right to say this is a big opportunity. We are home to a third of Europe’s AI start-ups, but we are very aware of the risks of AI. The Government are hosting a global AI summit, with the support of President Biden, this autumn, to ensure we get that regulation absolutely right.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Quite rightly, this Question Time has been dominated by questions about inflation and the cost of living. One policy that has not been mentioned is the Government’s net zero policy and the inflationary costs included in it, from green levies of £12 billion to the cost of strengthening the infrastructure and the favourable treatment given to renewable energy firms. While the Minister may condemn the Labour party for its £29 billion green policy spending plan, what is the cost of the Government’s net zero policies to consumers? Are they not picking their pockets dry?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

We have a world-leading track record on net zero, but we must balance that correctly with who bears the cost. Critical to the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is mobilising more private capital, and we are making great strides on that front.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I understand his concerns, and I will go into a little more detail later about the reasoning behind the restructuring of alcohol levies. In the last 10 fiscal events before this one, the whisky industry benefited from either freezes or cuts in duties. The Bill will bring into place the new framework announced some time ago, including the health aspect of being able to differentiate the strength of alcohol used in products—something that I suspect the right hon. Gentleman will want to engage with in his speech.

Let me turn to the substance of the Bill, starting with the measures to support enterprise and economic growth. Those of us on the Government Benches know that a strong private sector will grow the economy, spread wealth and prosperity across the country, help to invest in public services and support the most vulnerable in society. We recognise that central to these ambitions is private sector investment, so we are lowering business taxes to incentivise investment and tackle the productivity gap. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put that at the heart of his economic strategy as Chancellor, when he introduced the super deduction for corporation tax.

The next step in encouraging business investment is the full expensing policy announced in the spring Budget. The Bill introduces full expensing for the next three years. That means that for every single pound that a company invests in qualifying plant or machinery, its taxes are cut by up to 25p. That will put more than £27 billion back into the economy over the next three years. It is a corporation tax cut worth £9 billion, which the OBR has said will increase investment by 3% for every year that it is in place. It will also make us the only major European country with full expensing, and will give us the joint most generous capital allowance regime of any advanced economy, making the UK capital allowances regime the most competitive in the OECD on a net present value basis, and securing the UK’s position as a global leader.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that, as a result of corporation tax increases, the amount of money taken out of firms will be more than double the amount of the allowance that she has just spoken of?

[Victoria Atkins]

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look carefully at the small profits rate clauses in the Bill. We clearly do not want smaller businesses, such as those on our high streets that we care for so deeply as constituency MPs, to be subject to the regimes for the largest multinational companies. If he looks at those clauses, he will see that we keep the rate at 19% for companies with profits of £50,000 or less. For companies with profits between £50,000 and £250,000, there is a tapered rate of increase. That means that 70% of companies will not see an increase in their corporation tax rate. Only the top 10% of companies will be eligible for the full main rate, but we hope that many will take advantage of the full expensing policy that we have announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Just give me a moment—I am galloping up to the jump. He said it would be a game changer in terms of policing. We know that education leaders have welcomed the changes, as have others, including air traffic controllers.

The hon. Lady asked a specific question about doctors. I am happy to be able to help her, using statistics produced by the Department of Health and Social Care. They suggest that, in 2023-24, around 22,000 senior NHS clinicians would have been expected to exceed the former £40,000 annual allowance—she must not forget that point—and around 31,000 clinicians would have reached at least 75% of the abolished lifetime allowance. I am happy to reiterate that we are introducing the change precisely because of the challenges we know our NHS, which we all love, faces at the moment, with waiting lists and so on, and because we can make the changes next week, in the new financial year.

I know the hon. Lady will recall that, the day after the Chancellor delivered the Budget, someone eminent in the medical profession appeared on television and said that they had already started receiving phone calls from doctors about how they could come back into the workforce or increase their hours. I know this is a point of disagreement between us and the hon. Lady’s party, but we are determined to encourage doctors and clinicians to remain in the NHS, working for all our constituents.

We are also determined to spread prosperity everywhere. One of the most exciting parts of the Budget was the creation of 12 new investment zones, helping to spread the benefits of economic growth around the UK. The Bill will deliver important aspects of that ambition. It will ensure that investment zones have access to a single five-year tax offer in specific sites, matching that in freeports, consisting of enhanced rates of capital allowances, structures and building allowances, full relief from stamp duty land tax, business rates and a reduced rate of employer national insurance contributions.

Importantly, investment zones will also uphold the UK’s high environmental standards and meet our international commitments. We require that proposals demonstrate how they support the UK reaching net zero by 2050 and our new long-term targets to protect and enhance the natural environment, and how they are resilient to the effects of climate change.

The Bill will also deliver on commitments made at previous fiscal events, including important ones to deliver on our freedom to set our own course outside the European Union. Among those opportunities is a major review of the alcohol duty system, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). We have worked closely with industry on that over the last two years.

Now that the UK is able to diverge from inherited EU laws, we can implement a system that is a better fit with our national priorities, encourages growth and innovation, aligns with public health goals and is fairer for hard-working producers. The Bill simplifies the regime and moves to a progressive tax structure, where products are taxed according to their strengths. It also legislates for two reliefs: draught relief and a new small producer relief, which will support a wider range of small businesses to grow and provides recognition of the vital role that pubs and other on-trade venues play in our communities.

Thanks to the Windsor framework, the Government can implement these reforms in Northern Ireland, including the ability to tax alcohol by strength, and to introduce draught and small producer relief. We will set out more detail about how that will work in the coming weeks.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister appears to have anticipated my intervention. One aspect of VAT that could not apply to Northern Ireland was the relief on renewable items such as boilers and solar panels. The framework document said that, with immediate effect, zero VAT rates could apply to Northern Ireland. I do not see anything in the Bill about that. When does “immediate” apply? Did it apply last Friday, when the agreement was signed? Does it apply after this Finance Bill, or are we waiting for the EU to ratify its law changes before it can apply?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I interpret to be about energy-saving materials. I ask him to watch this space. I know how keen he and his colleagues in Northern Ireland are to ensure that we are able to bring forward those measures. I was hoping he would ask me a question that would give me the opportunity to flag my love for Bushmills whiskey—in a healthy way—but sadly I have been denied that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I regret that I cannot undertake to do so. As my hon. Friend will know, we have had to scorecard the impact of this measure, and I have looked carefully into the implementation dates precisely because of the concerns that right hon. and hon. Friends have raised. I understand why my hon. Friend cites the US, but the United States already has rules that require US-headquartered groups to pay a minimum level of tax on their foreign activities.

We believe very strongly that acting alongside others is crucial to meeting the aims of this global reform. I know that there are certain points of tension with particular sectors, but we can point—perhaps in Committee, if not now—to examples of our ability to shape the rules in order to answer the very reasonable needs and requests of sectors that are so critical to the UK economy.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does it not seem odd to her that at a time when we are talking about taking back sovereignty and having our independence, we are signing up to an arrangement that curtails that very ability? Does she recognise that the Republic of Ireland vigorously resists giving way on its 12.5% corporation tax? That directly competes not just with Northern Ireland, but—as we have already seen with pharmaceutical companies—with the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Victoria Atkins]

The way in which the agreement works means that the tax liability falls due in a country that has signed up, as Ireland has done, partly through its membership of the EU. The tax minimum floor is 15% and it falls due on the activities in that country. The country that collects the tax, first and foremost, will be the country in which the company is headquartered —it might be a UK-headquartered company, for example—but that floor means that with respect to those countries that do not charge 15%, the company is liable for that top-up tax. That is why being part of the group of countries helping to make the rules is so critical. It is not for me to advise the Irish Government or others on how to conduct their own tax affairs—I would not dream of doing so—but it is a member of the European Union, which has set out that directive, and the date is 31 December. I will leave that with the right hon. Gentleman.

Silicon Valley Bank

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

It would not be right for me to answer on behalf of the Bank of England, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me. We have an independent regulator that looks at these matters. The Treasury Committee regularly takes evidence from the Bank of England, and I am sure it will do so in future.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure that many firms across the United Kingdom will welcome, and breathe a sigh of relief at, the decision that was made over the weekend. However, this was done in haste. I ask the Minister: what kind of due diligence was done by HSBC when arranging this takeover, and is he sure that we are not walking into a situation similar to what we had with Lloyds and HBOS in 2008, when a quick decision led to a domino effect in the banking system and resulted in bail-outs by the taxpayer?

[Andrew Griffith]

I cannot speak for the due diligence that was done for HSBC, but it has got itself comfortable with it. We should also understand the relative scale of HSBC, which is an extraordinarily well-regulated, global and diverse bank. My understanding is that if we add all of the important clients of Silicon Valley Bank UK, which we had in the front of our mind as we sought to act over the weekend—if I may say so, we make no apology for acting in haste, because haste was absolutely the required procedure in this particular case—they would in their entirety be less than 1% of the overall client base of HSBC. With respect, I do not think that was the case in the examples to which the right hon. Member referred.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the ceramics sector, and I know how important it is to the Potteries and to his constituency. If he looks at SIC code 23 in the list of sectors, he will see a range of ceramics industries that are covered. It is worth looking at that list, because there are a great many specific types. Obviously we want to support business as far as possible. As I have said, the qualification for support is for the sector in question to be above the 80th percentile for energy intensity and the 60th percentile for trade intensity, and that is likely to cover much of the ceramics sector.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome this package, and I especially welcome the inclusion of charitable organisations, but the fact remains that even if energy prices stabilise, given Government policies on net zero and the decarbonisation of electricity, there will be continued upward pressure on businesses’ energy bills for the foreseeable future, and I do not believe that the package will help many of the small businesses that are hanging on by their fingertips at present because of the massive energy price increases.

First, will these measures apply to Northern Ireland automatically or, because of the separate regime, will they have to be tailored to the Northern Ireland market? Secondly, when it comes to energy-intensive industries that do a lot of trade, will the package include businesses such as food processing, which is very important in Northern Ireland?

[James Cartlidge]

Yes, food processing would be included. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether food processors would be in the energy and trade-intensive section, I suggest that he look at the website later or ask the company in question to do so. As with the current energy bill relief scheme, support will be given to UK non-domestic customers including those in Northern Ireland.