Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the compatibility of the (a) Government’s policy on charging VAT on audiobooks and (b) provisions of the Equality Act 2010 on people (i) with dyslexia, (ii) with sight loss or impairment and (iii) who are unable to hold books.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government is committed to supporting those with disabilities who may struggle to access physical books and therefore rely more heavily on audiobooks. In line with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act, the Government carefully considers the impact of VAT policy on those with disabilities
However, there is never any guarantee that any VAT cut is passed onto consumers. It is therefore not clear that cutting the VAT on audiobooks would benefit consumers, including those with disabilities.
The government does not currently have any plans to change the VAT treatment of audiobooks.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has made representations to the Minister for Women and Equalities in support of a 0% VAT rate on audiobooks to prevent discrimination against people with (a) dyslexia, (b) sight (i) loss and (ii) impairment and (c) disabilities preventing them from holding a physical book.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government is committed to supporting those with disabilities who may struggle to access physical books and therefore rely more heavily on audiobooks. In line with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act, the Government carefully considers the impact of VAT policy on those with disabilities.
However, there is never any guarantee that any VAT cut is passed onto consumers. It is therefore not clear that cutting the VAT on audiobooks would actually benefit consumers, including those with disabilities.
Given this, the government does not currently have any plans to change the VAT treatment of audiobooks.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of charging VAT on (a) academic and (b) other educational audiobooks on access to education for people with (i) dyslexia, (ii) sight loss and (iii) impairment who cannot hold books.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government is committed to supporting those with disabilities who may struggle to access physical books and therefore rely more heavily on audiobooks. In line with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act, the Government carefully considers the impact of VAT policy on those with disabilities.
However, there is never any guarantee that any VAT cut is passed onto consumers. It is therefore not clear that cutting the VAT on audiobooks would actually benefit consumers, including those with disabilities.
Given this, the government does not currently have any plans to change the VAT treatment of audiobooks.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much HMRC has spent on (a) legal advice and (b) other legal costs in relation to the loan charge since it was introduced.
Answered by Richard Fuller
HMRC does not hold an estimate of the total amount of legal costs relating to the Loan Charge since it was introduced in 2016.
HMRC will, when needed, incur costs instructing external counsel and other litigators. Costs records are maintained where required for litigation. Where such records are maintained, the costs recorded only include litigation expenses, and time spent by HMRC’s lawyers and litigators rather than total HMRC staff time and other expenses.
HMRC also has an internal legal team that provides legal advice on a number of different areas, such as developing, changing, and maintaining legislation, guidance, and interpretation of law. Therefore, to obtain and compile a total cost figure for all legal advice and other legal costs relating to the Loan Charge since 2016 would come at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 18 July 2022 to Question 35899 on Fuels: Prices, in the context of significant increases in the cost of white diesel since the conclusion of the consultation on reforms to the tax treatment of red diesel and other rebated fuels, if he will reassess the impact of the removal of the red diesel fuel entitlement on the (a) construction and (b) horticultural industries, including landscape gardeners.
Answered by Alan Mak - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (jointly with the Cabinet Office)
In 2020, the Government ran a public consultation to make sure it had not overlooked any exceptional reasons why sectors currently using red diesel should be allowed to continue to do so beyond April 2022, and to seek views on its proposals for implementing the changes.
Following the consultation, the Government decided that rebated fuel in certain vehicles and machines could continue to be used for purposes relating to horticulture. As set out in guidance on GOV.UK, for the purpose of rebated fuel entitlement, horticulture is treated as the cultivation and management of gardens (including vegetable plots, allotments and market gardens, but also flowerbeds, trees, shrubberies and ornamental lawns in public parks). In contrast, landscaping and maintenance of grassy recreational areas is not regarded as horticulture.
The relevant guidance, Excise Notice 75, is available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-rebated-fuels-in-vehicles-and-machines-excise-notice-75-from-1-april-2022
Having assessed the cases made by other sectors to retain their red diesel entitlement, including construction, the Government did not believe that they were compelling enough to outweigh the need to ensure fairness between the different users of diesel fuels and the Government’s long-term environmental objectives.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 18 July 2022 to Question 35899 on Fuels: Prices, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing further financial incentives for switching to cleaner alternatives to red diesel; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Alan Mak - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (jointly with the Cabinet Office)
The Government announced in the 2020 Budget that it would be removing the entitlement to use red diesel from most sectors from April 2022. These are important long-term reforms, which ensure most businesses that used red diesel prior to April 2022 now pay the same amount of tax as ordinary motorists. This more fairly reflects the harmful emissions produced. These reforms are also designed to incentivise the development and adoption of greener alternative technologies, and improvements in the energy efficiency of vehicles and machinery.
To support the development of alternatives that affected businesses can switch to, the Government is at least doubling the funding provided for energy innovation through the £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio. From that portfolio, the Government announced the £40 million Red Diesel Replacement Competition, which will provide grant funding for projects that develop and demonstrate lower carbon, lower cost alternatives to red diesel for the construction, and mining and quarrying sectors. These sectors were chosen because they encompass 62% of the UK’s red diesel use. However, the technologies developed from this programme will also be applicable to other sectors to support decarbonisation, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is planning a series of dissemination events in the future with industry and other affected sectors to spread awareness about the successes achieved and lessons learned through this programme.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the impact of the removal of the red diesel fuel entitlement and rising costs of fuel on small businesses; and if he will make it his policy to reinstate the entitlement for landscaping contractors.
Answered by Alan Mak - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (jointly with the Cabinet Office)
The Government confirmed at Spring Budget 2021 that it would remove the entitlement to use red diesel from most sectors from April 2022.
The Government recognised that this would be a significant change for some businesses, and ran a consultation to gather information from on the expected impact of these tax changes and make sure it had not overlooked any exceptional reasons why other sectors should be allowed to continue to use red diesel beyond April 2022.
Having assessed the cases made by other sectors to retain their red diesel entitlement, including the landscaping industry, the Government did not believe that they were compelling enough to outweigh the need to ensure fairness between the different users of diesel fuels and the Government’s long-term environmental objectives.
In response to high fuel prices, the Government announced a temporary 12-month cut to the duty on petrol and diesel of 5p per litre and an equivalent percentage cut on the rates for rebated fuels. Overall, this is a tax cut for consumers, including small businesses, worth around £2.4 billion in 2022-23.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many claims were excluded or rejected from the Government covid-19 furlough scheme; and if he will summarise the reasons for exclusion.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The Government has been clear throughout the pandemic that HMRC should prioritise getting vital support to businesses and their employees.
HMRC designed the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) to prevent fraud before any payments were made, in both how they set the eligibility criteria and the claim process itself.
To qualify for CJRS, employers needed a Pay As You Earn scheme and to submit a Real Time Information (RTI) return. Additionally, for claims with 100 employees or more, employers were required to provide details of the individual employees’ wages.
HMRC also put in place a series of checks on claims before they were paid, so they blocked those that were highly indicative of criminal activity.
As a result, an estimated 21,500 ineligible claims for CJRS were automatically blocked from entering the claims process.
In addition to those that were blocked, a further 3,500 claims for CJRS were rejected in 2020-21 as they showed indications of being linked to criminal activity.
Further checks also included checking claim amounts against employment information already returned to HMRC and capping any excessive CJRS claims to the correct entitlement amount.
Details of HMRC’s prepayment compliance activity for 2021-22 will be released in HMRC’s Annual Report and Accounts later this year. This will provide the information on blocked and rejected claims for 2021-22.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many claims were excluded or rejected from the (a) Self Employment Income Support Scheme and (b) Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) were designed to prevent as much fraud as possible before any payments were made, while still quickly supporting those who needed it.
By building automated controls into the digital claim process, HMRC prevented more than 100,000 ineligible or mistaken claims within the Covid-19 schemes, namely CJRS, SEISS, and Eat Out to Help Out. By carrying out pre-payment checks based on risk and intelligence profiles, HMRC also blocked more than 29,000 claims and registrations in 2020-21.
The Government remains committed to cracking down on fraud wherever it arises, which is why the Government has invested over £100 million in a Taxpayer Protection Taskforce of 1,265 HMRC staff to combat fraud on the HMRC-administered Covid-19 schemes. This is one of the largest and quickest responses to a fraud risk by HMRC.
The Taskforce is expected to recover £800 million to £1 billion from fraudulent or incorrect payments over the next two years. This builds on the work already done, which saw HMRC recover £536 million in 2020-21.
Asked by: Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel Hempstead)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he plans to respond to correspondence from the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead dated 27 May 2021 on Fix Care for All, reference MP69886.
Answered by Simon Clarke
I responded to the Honourable Member’s correspondence on 19 October 2021.