Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what financial support he plans to allocate to (a) optometrists, (b) physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy clinics, (c) podiatrists and (d) other healthcare practices that are receiving near-zero patient income due to the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will make it his policy to exempt such healthcare practices from fees normally payable to their regulators.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) recognises this is a challenging and uncertain period for providers of health and social care, with some suspending their routine services, changing how services are delivered or developing and expanding their service to support the national response to COVID-19. The CQC are asking providers to contact them if they are facing any difficulties in paying CQC’s fees. In these circumstances the CQC will work constructively to find an appropriate solution. Additionally, to give providers in financial difficulty space during this period the CQC will not seek to recover aged debt for the next three months.
NHS England and NHS Improvement issued guidance on 1 April setting out that all routine NHS eye care services should be suspended during COVID-19 to ensure compliance with social distancing measures. Essential services will continue to be provided from a limited number of optical practices. NHS England and Improvement has committed to securing funding for NHS ophthalmic contractors based on average monthly NHS General Ophthalmic Services fees from the previous year. Where activity exceeds the average monthly costs, this will attract additional funding and be reimbursed in the usual way.
Practices are still able to access central Government support for the private element of their business, as can practices who have not been selected to provide essential eye care services.
Support available for private medical businesses includes a commitment to pay 80% of the regular monthly wages, up to £2,500, of furloughed workers for four months, via the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), and help for the self-employed with the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), which will provide grants to those who are self-employed, or members of partnerships, worth 80% of their trading profits/partnership trading profits, also up to a maximum of £2,500 per month.
Healthcare practices may also benefit from other measures, including:
The Business Support website provides further information about how businesses can access the support that has been made available, who is eligible, when the schemes open and how to apply - https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/coronavirus-business-support.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will ensure that directors of businesses, who cannot be themselves be furloughed while administering the payments of their staff members on furlough, receive financial support comparable to that received by such members of staff; and what other steps he plans to take to support directors of small businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by Jesse Norman
Those who pay themselves a salary through their own company may be eligible to claim for 80% of usual monthly wage costs, up to £2,500 a month, through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). The CJRS is available to employers, including personal service companies, and individuals paying themselves a salary through a PAYE scheme are eligible. Where furloughed directors need to carry out particular duties to fulfil the statutory obligations they owe to their company, they may do so provided they do no more than would reasonably be judged necessary for that purpose, i.e. they should not do work of a kind they would carry out in normal circumstances to generate commercial revenue or provides services to or on behalf of their company.
Income from dividends is a return on investment in the company, rather than wages, and is not eligible for support. Under current reporting mechanisms it is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs to distinguish between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and dividends from other sources, and between dividends in lieu of employment income and as returns from other corporate activity. Expanding the scope would require HMRC to collect and verify new information. This would take longer to deliver and put at risk the other schemes which the Government is committed to delivering as quickly as possible.
Those who are not eligible for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme might be able to access the other support Government is providing, including the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, the Bounce Back Loans Scheme for small businesses, and the deferral of tax payments. More information about the full range of business support measures is available at?www.businesssupport.gov.uk/coronavirus-business-support/
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of making it his policy to (a) reduce and (b) abolish Entrepreneurs' Relief on (i) incentives for entrepreneurs to start and build up new businesses for ultimate profitable sale, (ii) decisions being taken by entrepreneurs to locate new businesses in the UK in preference to other countries and (iii) financial outcomes for retiring entrepreneurs.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Government’s manifesto set out its intention to review and reform Entrepreneurs’ Relief. Any changes to the tax system, including any reform of Entrepreneurs’ Relief, will be set out in the Budget on 11 March.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2020 to Question 18428 on War Widows: War Pensions, whether it is a requirement of the estimated 265 war widows whose pensions were withdrawn on remarriage to (a) divorce and (b) divorce and remarry (i) their husband and (ii) a different person; and if he will publish the alternative methods his Department is examining to resolve this situation.
Answered by Steve Barclay - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
In 2014, the Government made prospective changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and War Pension Scheme (WPS). These provided that any Military Widow(er) who remarried or cohabited from 1 April 2015 onwards would retain their pension for life. There was no underlying assumption that those who had lost their pension on remarriage or cohabitation prior to these reforms should divorce or separate from their partner.
The Government currently has no plans to reinstate war widow(er)s pensions with retrospective effect. The Government’s policy presumption is that changes will not be made retrospectively. This policy is the foundation for keeping public service pensions sustainable.
‘Pensions for life’ for surviving widow(er)s and civil partners were introduced across most public service pension schemes from the late 1990s to the late 2000s, with prospective effect. Existing members of pension schemes who were accruing pensions were usually given the option to remain on former schemes or move across to new schemes.
Survivors’ pension entitlements are still subject to cessation if the survivor remarries or cohabits under the rules of many legacy public service pension schemes. Examples of such schemes are: the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme ‘Classic’ section, the Police Pension Scheme 1987, the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992, and, for members whose service ended before April 2008, the NHS Pension Scheme 1995 section and, for members whose service ended before 2007, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2020 to Question 18425 on Pensions: War Widows; if he will make an assessment of (a) the potential merits and (b) compliance with financial legislation of introducing ex gratia awards of compensation of sacrifice made to the estimated 265 war widows whose pensions were withdrawn on remarriage or cohabitation and have not been restored.
Answered by Steve Barclay - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
In 2014, the Government made prospective changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and War Pension Scheme (WPS). These provided that any Military Widow(er) who remarried or cohabited from 1 April 2015 onwards would retain their pension for life. There was no underlying assumption that those who had lost their pension on remarriage or cohabitation prior to these reforms should divorce or separate from their partner.
The Government currently has no plans to reinstate war widow(er)s pensions with retrospective effect. The Government’s policy presumption is that changes will not be made retrospectively. This policy is the foundation for keeping public service pensions sustainable.
‘Pensions for life’ for surviving widow(er)s and civil partners were introduced across most public service pension schemes from the late 1990s to the late 2000s, with prospective effect. Existing members of pension schemes who were accruing pensions were usually given the option to remain on former schemes or move across to new schemes.
Survivors’ pension entitlements are still subject to cessation if the survivor remarries or cohabits under the rules of many legacy public service pension schemes. Examples of such schemes are: the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme ‘Classic’ section, the Police Pension Scheme 1987, the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992, and, for members whose service ended before April 2008, the NHS Pension Scheme 1995 section and, for members whose service ended before 2007, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2020 to Question 18425 on Pensions: War Widows, which groups other than war widows have had pensions withdrawn on (a) cohabitation and (b) remarriage.
Answered by Steve Barclay - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
In 2014, the Government made prospective changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and War Pension Scheme (WPS). These provided that any Military Widow(er) who remarried or cohabited from 1 April 2015 onwards would retain their pension for life. There was no underlying assumption that those who had lost their pension on remarriage or cohabitation prior to these reforms should divorce or separate from their partner.
The Government currently has no plans to reinstate war widow(er)s pensions with retrospective effect. The Government’s policy presumption is that changes will not be made retrospectively. This policy is the foundation for keeping public service pensions sustainable.
‘Pensions for life’ for surviving widow(er)s and civil partners were introduced across most public service pension schemes from the late 1990s to the late 2000s, with prospective effect. Existing members of pension schemes who were accruing pensions were usually given the option to remain on former schemes or move across to new schemes.
Survivors’ pension entitlements are still subject to cessation if the survivor remarries or cohabits under the rules of many legacy public service pension schemes. Examples of such schemes are: the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme ‘Classic’ section, the Police Pension Scheme 1987, the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992, and, for members whose service ended before April 2008, the NHS Pension Scheme 1995 section and, for members whose service ended before 2007, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 12 February 2020 to Question 13939, what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's policies on withdrawn pensions of the potential reinstatement of pensions to war widows who lost them on remarriage or cohabitation; which groups other than war widows have had pensions withdrawn; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of restoring war widows’ pensions to war widows who divorce their subsequent spouses and then remarry them.
Answered by Steve Barclay - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
It has been the policy of successive Governments that changes to public service pension and compensation schemes should not be applied retrospectively where benefits have already been awarded. This principle is a foundation for keeping the schemes sustainable and given this, the Government currently has no plans to reinstate war widow(er)s pensions with retrospective effect.
‘Pensions for life’ for surviving widow(er)s and civil partners were introduced across all public service pension schemes during the late 1990s – early 2000s, with prospective effect. Existing members of pension schemes who were accruing pensions were usually given the option to remain on former schemes or move across to new schemes.
However, in 2014, the Government made prospective changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and War Pension Scheme (WPS). These stated that any Military Widow(er) who remarried or cohabited from 1 April 2015 onwards would retain their pension for life. This change was welcomed by campaigners, including the War Widows Association (WWA), who recognised at the time that such changes would not be applied retrospectively.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the consistent application of the principle of retrospectivity in the cases of the (a) loan charge and (b) war widows' pension.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Loan Charge is not retrospective as it is a new charge on disguised remuneration loan balances which were outstanding at 5 April 2019.
However, Sir Amyas Morse’s independent Review recommended that the Loan Charge should be applied to disguised remuneration loans which were entered into on 9 December 2010 or afterwards, as the law about the tax treatment of these loans was clear from this date. The Government accepted this recommendation.
It has been the policy of successive Governments that changes to public service pension and compensation schemes should not be applied retrospectively where benefits have already been awarded. The Government currently has no plans to reinstate war widows’ pensions with retrospective effect.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment his Department has made of the risk of suicide among people subject to the 2019 Loan Charge.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Government published a report on the loan charge in March 2019. The report was required by section 95 of Finance Act 2019, but goes wider than the review set out in legislation, explaining the rationale for the charge and considering its impacts. The report also provides information on how HM Revenue and Customs support those affected by the loan charge, including the introduction of a dedicated helpline. The report is available online at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-on-time-limits-and-the-disguised-remuneration-loan-charge
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent estimate his Department has made of the numbers of (a) people with closed tax years who have been found liable for the 2019 Loan Charge and (b) promoters of loan schemes subject to the 2019 Loan Charge that have been convicted of criminal offences related to those loan charges.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The information requested is not available. HMRC are working through the settlement process with those Disguised Remuneration users who came forward to settle their tax affairs before 5 April 2019.
The loan charge was announced in Budget 2016, and scheme users who chose not to repay the outstanding loan or agree a settlement with HMRC by 5 April 2019 are now liable for the loan charge and should report it as part of their 2018-19 tax liability.
To date, no promoters of disguised remuneration (DR) schemes have been convicted of criminal offences related to DR schemes. There are no criminal offences specific to the promotion of mass marketed tax avoidance schemes, but HMRC may conduct a criminal investigation into an individual’s actions when, for example, reliance is placed on a false or altered document, or if material facts are misrepresented. For example, last month six individuals were arrested on suspicion of promoting fraudulent loan charge arrangements.
Since the formation of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service on 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance schemes, resulting in over 100 years custodial sentences. A significant number of avoidance scheme promoters are currently under criminal investigation by HMRC.