Debates between Sir Edward Davey and Wes Streeting

There have been 2 exchanges between Sir Edward Davey and Wes Streeting

1 Tue 8th January 2019 Finance (No. 3) Bill
HM Treasury
3 interactions (185 words)
2 Wed 25th October 2017 Police Funding: London
Home Office
2 interactions (2 words)

Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Sir Edward Davey and Wes Streeting
Tuesday 8th January 2019

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Bill Main Page
HM Treasury
Sir Edward Davey Portrait Sir Edward Davey - Hansard
8 Jan 2019, 7:40 p.m.

Indeed. HMRC knew about these tax schemes for years and took no action. They were widely used—as we have heard, right hon. and hon. Members from around the House have constituents affected—and widely advertised and yet were ignored by the tax authorities. People could only take some public sector positions if they agreed to be paid via these schemes, and it emerged ahead of the Westminster Hall debate that even some HMRC contractors were paid through such a scheme.

Wes Streeting Portrait Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
8 Jan 2019, 7:41 p.m.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause. I found HMRC’s answers to the Treasury Committee wholly unsatisfactory. There remain serious questions to be asked of the promoters of these schemes, of the employers, including public sector employers, who promoted them to contractors, and also of HMRC. If people were given tax advice and followed it, and if HMRC was aware of these schemes but did not take action in any previous tax year, how on earth could any reasonable person have concluded that they were doing anything wrong?

Sir Edward Davey Portrait Sir Edward Davey - Hansard

I totally agree, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Police Funding: London
Debate between Sir Edward Davey and Wes Streeting
Wednesday 25th October 2017

(2 years, 4 months ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate
Home Office
Sir Edward Davey Portrait Sir Edward Davey - Hansard
25 Oct 2017, 10:55 a.m.

rose—