UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Lucy Frazer

  • Lucy Frazer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lucy Frazer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Frazer on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if he will take steps to ensure that the Deaflympics are recognised as equal to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

    Tracey Crouch

    Government recognises the importance of deaf sport to those who take part at both grassroots and elite level. Sport England is investing £365,872 in UK Deaf Sport between 2014 and 2017 in recognition of this.Questions of official recognition at an international level are a matter for the International Olympic Committee.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Frazer on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what support the Government is providing to enable developing countries to harness mobile phone technology.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    Our partnership with mobile phone operator group, the GSMA, has used mobile technology to improve the reach, delivery and affordability of basic energy, water and sanitation services for 1.3 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and many of our other programmes in health, education and other sectors use mobile technology.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Frazer on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he plans to undertake the review of shared ownership announced in the report, Proposals to streamline the resale of shared ownership properties, Consultation: summary of responses, published in March 2015.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Government carried out an internal review of Shared Ownership policy last year. Following this, the Autumn Statement confirmed £4.1 billion for 135,000 new Help to Buy: Shared Ownership starts by 2021. It also raised the income cap on Shared Ownership in England from £60,000 to £80,000, removed restrictions on who can buy Shared Ownership homes, enabled existing shared owners to climb the Shared Ownership ladder and removed restrictions on how many bedrooms Shared Ownership buyers can purchase.

    The prospectus for the Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme 2016 to 2021 was launched on 13 April 2016 and invites applications for up to £4.7 billion of funding to increase the supply of new shared ownership and affordable homes.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Our houses are not just bricks and mortar; they are homes. And those who live around us are not just our neighbours; they are our communities. We all want to live in streets that uplift our spirits and where our children, and their children, can afford to live and own their own homes alongside us. Churchill once said:

    “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]

    So too, if we empower our communities, they will empower us.

    We know that we can do more to ensure that, when we expand our communities, we do so in the right places, with the right infrastructure, and with the support of local people and local representatives. The think-tank Demos asked people whether they would prefer to have more say over how money is spent in their area, or to have more money. People were twice as likely to say that they would prefer to have more say and less money. Our Bill seeks to provide opportunities for collaboration and empowerment. It provides more opportunity for more homes that are beautiful, supported by infrastructure, delivered with democracy, which level up across our country.

    I thank all colleagues for their extensive engagement, highlighting to me, to the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and to the Secretary of State the issues and concerns in their local areas. All represent different and diverse areas across the country: rural and urban, coastal and remote, island and inner city. I thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for their constructive contribution on this issue and their unwavering commitment to our planning system and their constituents.

    I also thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and the many Members across the House who have contributed significantly to our policy decisions on these issues.

    It is important that we build homes this country needs in the places that we need homes most. We have a moral responsibility to get on and build, but we also have a responsibility to our existing communities to do so in the right way and with community support.

    Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)

    My constituents in Rushcliffe are supportive of house building, but they rightly object to being forced to build 660% of the national average, as they were last year, often on greenfield sites and without the infrastructure to match. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Bill will give real teeth to our brownfield-first policy and give power back to local people to shape the future of their communities?

    Lucy Frazer

    I was pleased to discuss these issues with my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right that we must build on brownfield first. That is what local communities want. Through not just this Bill, but the consultation that we will bring forward on the national planning policy framework, we will identify how we can encourage local communities to do just that, with incentives through the infrastructure levy, for example, but through other measures too.

    The way for a community and local representatives to shape their area’s future is through the local plan. At the moment, local plans are taking too long. The system is too onerous and councils feel that their local constraints are not properly taken into account. The result is that fewer than 40% of planning authorities have adopted a plan in the last five years. That means that, instead of developments being delivered coherently and in collaboration with communities, new houses are being imposed on local people through successive planning applications. Through the Bill and the consultation on the NPPF, which we intend to launch before Christmas, we will ensure that the needs of the community are taken into account when a plan is designed. Once the plan is in place, it will provide protection against other unwanted development.

    Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

    I completely agree with the Minister about local plans. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has said that on many occasions. May I just ask her, though, whether, in national terms, the Government are still committed to the 300,000 figure, as a target, an objective, an aspiration or whatever and, if they are, how will they achieve that figure unless the numbers agreed in local plans individually throughout the country add up to that 300,000?

    Lucy Frazer

    I can confirm that the Government are committed to building 300,000 homes because we do need those homes across the country and we need to ensure that young people can get on to the housing ladder. As I have just identified, communities are not agreeing local plans with those figures in them, so they are getting development where they do not want it; it is speculative development. What we will see through this measure is communities coming together with that starting point number, but seeing what works for their communities. When they engage properly on it, I think we will see that housing coming through.

    Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

    My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am a passionate campaigner for brownfield first. When it comes to this point about communities, it is refreshing to hear that the Government have taken on board the points about including communities in that process, making them feel much more involved. Will she, at some point, be giving us further detail on how that process will work and where the opportunities will be for local communities to feed in their views?

    Lucy Frazer

    I was happy to discuss these very issues with my right hon. Friend, who has written on this issue and I know feels very deeply about it, especially the issue of brownfield land and development. We will ensure that people will build what their local community wants through, for example, not just their local plan, but the mandatory design code. Local areas will have a design code, so that, when a building comes through, it will be in the manner and design that local communities want.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    My right hon. and learned Friend will know that, from the time I was the shadow Housing Minister 15 to 20 years ago, to the Building Beautiful, Building Better Commission and now the Office For Place, I have emphasised exactly what she has just described. Too often in the modern age, development has been out of scale and out of keeping with the existing built environment. Will she ensure that local authorities are fully informed of their ability to turn down an application for housing purely on design and scale terms?

    Lucy Frazer

    I know that my right hon. Friend is very interested in these issues and is conscious of beauty and the importance for us to maintain that. Of course local authorities will be able to take their local decisions on those matters that concern them.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

    I am pleased to hear what the Minister is saying about improving the efficiency of the process. She will know that my amendment 75 talks about the fact that the guards are down for local authorities when their local plan is in abeyance. That was brought into sharp relief in the village of Harrold. It was only thanks to local councillor Alison Field Foster and the local parish council that development could be stopped. Is what the Minister is saying today going to close that gap to make my amendment unnecessary, or will there still be a liability for local authorities under her plan?

    Lucy Frazer

    I have studied carefully my hon. Friend’s amendments, which are all on interesting points. We do not think that there is a need for those amendments, because there are provisions in the Bill to ensure that local communities can make decisions to protect local communities.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    Can the Minister remind the House how the Government will stop developers gaming a local plan and getting permissions that are not within the local plan under some silly rule?

    Lucy Frazer

    This Bill and the proposals that we are bringing forward through the revised NPPF will do exactly that. At the moment, in 60% of areas, building is through speculative development, not where communities want it. We want to streamline the local plan process, get those plans in place, where communities want it, and then we can start and continue to build.

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

    Lucy Frazer

    I will make a little progress, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Member shortly.

    In setting the principles for a local plan, we intend to retain a method for calculating local housing need figures. But these will be an advisory starting point. We propose that it will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built. They will take into account considerations such as the green belt, and the existence of a national park or coast. Building densities should not be significantly out of character with an area. We also propose making changes to the rolling five-year land supply, ending the obligation where a planned strategic housing policy is up to date. Communities will have a powerful incentive to get involved in their local plans.

    Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

    It is good to hear the policies that my right hon. and learned Friend is outlining. My constituency has a high housing target that is forcing the closure of a working port. How would the options she has just outlined help my constituency keep a working docks instead of seeing the development of high-rise flats?

    Lucy Frazer

    I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for her area, which has seen significant building. I cannot comment on any particular local plans, but an area must consider all the things that it needs to thrive, and that includes houses as well as employment facilities.

    Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)

    I thank the Minister for her words, which are incredibly helpful. Not many constituencies are like Basingstoke, which has built 150,000 houses in the last five decades. Can the Minister give me some comfort that that high level of delivery will be taken into account when future house building needs are decided? At the moment, we have to build 1,400 houses a year, which is just not sustainable, not least for the NHS.

    Lucy Frazer

    I thank my right hon. Friend, and I was pleased to talk to her about her concerns, because I know that she is a huge advocate for her area. I can give her that comfort that we think it should be taken into account if areas have already over-delivered and taken significant housing. That should be taken into account when putting together the local plan.

    Rachael Maskell

    Further to the point that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) made, when developers build luxury flats that the local community often cannot afford it adds nothing to the housing numbers that need to be delivered. How will the Bill address that issue?

    Lucy Frazer

    We are taking a variety of approaches. We emphasise the importance of variety, not just in the types of accommodation provided but in the type of buildings. That is how we get more housing supply, because we will have more uptake. We are also committed to more affordable homes, and we have a £11.5 billion fund to ensure that we get those homes built.

    The Bill respects communities, but it also respects the environment. Central to our reforms will be a new system for assessing the impact of development on the environment. The system will replace the bureaucratic maze that we inherited from the EU. We will replace it with a system that is just as protective, but is outcomes based, not systems driven.

    Clearly the Bill will not achieve the perfect planning system for every Member, councillor and constituent, when we all live in diverse areas with conflicting needs and interests, but I hope that the amendments will go even further towards improving our planning system.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)

    My right hon. and learned Friend will know that Warrington, as a new town, has seen thousands and thousands of homes built in the last 50 years. It is currently in the process of agreeing its local plan—the local planning inquiry finished just last week. I am pleased to hear today that many of the suggestions will be put into law. Can she confirm that there will be a period in which local plans are paused before they are agreed and adopted? Many of the proposals she talks about today are fundamental to making the changes that we need to see in local plans.

    Lucy Frazer

    I can give a confirmation that there will be some transitional provisions enabling local councils to proceed with the plan that they are about to adopt, but if they want to reflect, there will be an opportunity to do that as well. We believe that we are improving the system through the measures that we have set out.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that we also need to level up access to green space and nature? Right now, the distribution of green space is very unequal; many people on the lowest incomes simply do not have access to green space at all. Will she look at my new clause 13 and look again at the whole issue of ensuring a right of access to good green space?

    Lucy Frazer

    As I mentioned just now, the Bill is not just about building; it is also about protecting the environment. A number of measures in the Bill will ensure that we protect our natural spaces—30% of our nature—and our local nature recovery strategies, which are due to begin across England as soon as possible, were committed to in the Environment Act 2021.

    Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)

    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, following the talks between Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and me, we should have reached a compromise on a much more community-led, environmentally friendly and regenerative housing policy? As the Minister can hear, however, there is still considerable concern about making sure that we deliver the substance of these things as well as simply the words around them. Will that be reflected in the NPPF?

    Lucy Frazer

    I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to make sure that we get our planning system right, on behalf of and with so many colleagues on our Benches. I assure him that we in the Department for Levelling Up—me and the Secretary of State—believe that we have come to a better solution. We are committed to delivering it, as I am sure my hon. Friend and others across this House will see in the policy that we will propose in the NPPF and bring forward before Christmas.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) rose—

    Lucy Frazer

    I will make a little progress, because I would like to address the Government amendments, which I will do in five categories. First, we are making it easier for people to develop where they want to develop, and where it delivers the best gain to the community and ensures that planned-for development actually happens. I will highlight five measures in this first category.

    Through new clauses 49 to 59, we will pilot community land auctions. They will seek to increase the supply of land and aim to capture more land value more effectively to the benefit of the local community. Planning permission will not be granted automatically on sites allocated in the local plan through the auction process.

    Through new clauses 60 and 69, we are allowing for street votes enabling residents to come together and propose additional development on their streets in line with their preferences—subject to meeting prescribed requirements—and vote on whether it should be given permission. In speaking to those new clauses, I would like to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the “Strong Suburbs” report by Policy Exchange.

    We are making it easier for people to access suitable plots to build their own homes. We are building on the immense work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). We recognise the importance of self-build and custom housebuilding, and new clause 68 clarifies the duty on authorities to provide for plots for such homes in their planning decisions.

    We will also seek to reduce barriers to smaller-scale developments that communities can easily get behind. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) has worked significantly on that area. I can confirm that our intention is to consult on changing national policy to encourage greater use of small sites, especially those that will deliver higher levels of affordable housing.

    Importantly, we are ensuring that when permissions are given, developments can be built out quickly. New clauses 48 and 67 deal with that. Members across the House have been concerned about the rate at which development occurs once planning permission has been granted. It is wrong for developers simply to sit on planning permissions, because that increases the number of permissions that have to be granted and risks overdevelopment. The Bill introduces further steps to tackle the issue, including a requirement for developers to report on the rate at which they build, and allowing authorities to deny permission for further development on the same sites where the developers have failed to build out. All those measures will encourage development where people want it and where they have agreed to have it.

    Mr Betts

    I am not sure whether the Minister has looked at my amendments to her new clause 67. I agree with her about ensuring that builders build out at the required rate. However, some builders build out while ignoring the conditions for the planning permission put on them. I have a really bad case of that in my constituency with Avant Homes, which does not connect with local people, puts mud all over the roads and puts silt in the local brook—that sort of thing. Will she accept that local councils should be entitled to take account of failures to observe conditions when looking at future planning applications?

    Lucy Frazer

    We are looking at the issue carefully and will consult on further measures that we might be able to bring forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are reasonable avenues that we can explore, we will look closely at them.

    Dame Maria Miller

    I want to build further on that intervention with regard to building out. In my constituency, many of those who have built out and built houses have not done so to the required quality, leaving many residents having to seek significant remedial works. However, my local authority is not allowed to take that into account when giving future permissions. Could the Minister look at consulting on that? Surely we should be encouraging quality over quantity.

    Lucy Frazer

    I am happy to discuss that issue further with my right hon. Friend. As I mentioned, we are very concerned about build-out to increase the number of homes, and I know that the Secretary of State feels strongly about quality.

    The second set of measures that we are introducing by way of amendments relates to infrastructure, because put simply, we cannot have houses without services to support them. Through the Bill, we will replace the existing system with an infrastructure levy—a non-negotiable liability for the developer based on the value of the development. Our plan is to implement the levy in stages so that we can adapt it according to the latest data and the latest evidence.

    Thirdly, we are protecting the environment. On top of our environmental assessment reforms, new clauses 77 to 79 will support the Government’s efforts to protect and enhance our natural environment. We are creating an obligation on water companies to go further to address nutrient pollution and clean up our rivers. That will unlock thousands of new homes, complemented by new wetland and woodland areas, improving people’s access to green space and delivering new habitats for nature. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for her support and to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for working with us so closely to achieve these ends.

    Fourthly, we recognise that some areas—Devon and Cornwall, for example—have particular problems with short-term lets, which, while attractive as a tourist industry, mean that large parts of an area have limited long-term residents, creating a real problem for local services. I am grateful to a number of colleagues for highlighting and campaigning on that. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon, for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) as well as others for the work that they have done. As a result of the points that they have raised, we intend to deliver a new registration scheme for short-term lets, starting with a further consultation on the exact design of the scheme, which will launch before the summer recess.

    We will go even further by also consulting on a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to enable local areas to better control changes of use to short-term lets, if they wish. Furthermore, the consultation on changes to use classes and the introduction of national permitted development rights to enable change of use where there is no local issue will be launched early next year.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    I am very grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention and for the time she gave me last week to discuss this matter. Can she clarify whether it is now the Government’s intention to make short-term lets a separate category of planning use following the consultation? If so, when would that come in? Will she also ensure that planning departments have the resources to enforce that?

    Lucy Frazer

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking on this issue and indeed other issues on this topic. We are committing to consulting on the issue. We propose to consult early in the new year. Following that consultation, we hope to bring in some legislation, if that is the result of the consultation. There is a very tight timetable both for that and the registration scheme, and the registration scheme will be coming through in autumn.

    Rachael Maskell

    Will the Minister explain why she is not bringing in a licensing scheme that would enable local authorities to determine areas where they could exclude the expansion of Airbnbs or control licences where it was appropriate to do so?

    Lucy Frazer

    We are bringing through a very important first step to identify where people have short-term lets across the country and where there are local issues. We know there are issues in some local areas, but not in others. We want to establish where they are and where they are causing issues for local communities, so we can make evidence-based policy and bring forward action to ensure those communities are not hollowed out, that people live there and that they can get the services they need. I emphasise that that builds on other action the Government have taken to ensure that we act and that people living in those communities get the support they need.

    Fifthly, we are making the process work better. The Bill makes it easier to create new, locally led urban development corporations that can be the planning authority for large-scale development. We are also ensuring that all types of development corporation can have the planning powers they need. In support of that, Government amendments 34 and 36 make technical changes. Through Government new clause 64, we are facilitating charging by statutory consultees for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This recognises that commenting can be a resource-intensive exercise, and we do not want valuable advice to delay development. In addition, the Secretary of State will be given powers to commit the Marine Management Organisation to increase its fees for post-consent marine licensing monitoring, variations and transfers.

    Our amendments focus on making the planning system, and the systems that interact with it, work better, innovating and improving for the benefit of all our constituents.

    Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not arriving for the beginning of my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks. On the third group of amendments, on nutrient neutrality, may I applaud the Government for the work they are doing in trying to ensure that water companies take full responsibility for their discharges into our waterways? This is an extremely important and powerful set of amendments, and I applaud her for that. In that context, and in the context of both community land auctions and the infrastructure levy, is it the case that water companies can be in receipt of both those sources of funding in the event that local authorities deem it an appropriate use either of the infrastructure levy or funds arising out of community land auctions? At present, they do not appear to be. Can they become statutory consultees on significant developments, which at present they are not?

    Lucy Frazer

    I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, because I know he has done significant work on this issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced future funding from fines handed out to polluting water companies being invested in schemes for the benefit of our natural environment. I know he did a lot of work on that issue.

    On the infrastructure levy, water and waste water networks are covered by the broad definition of infrastructure, so the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question on that issue is yes. On statutory consultees, the Secretary of State can make changes to the list of statutory consultees through secondary legislation, and we will consult on whether to make water companies statutory consultees, and if so, how best to do that.

    Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)

    Before the last intervention the Minister mentioned improving communities. I am grateful for the time she has spent with me in the last few weeks discussing this Bill, but will she give some clarity on amendment 2, on including childcare provision within the infrastructure definitions? Conversations with her outside this place indicate that she feels it would be included, but can she give me and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), in whose name the amendment stands, the reassurance that childcare provision would be included?

    Lucy Frazer

    My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his area; I have dealt with him in a number of Departments, and he stands up for his community on every issue. I am grateful for the work he has done to make sure the Bill overall comes out in a good place, and I know he has also spoken to my colleagues on a number of issues.

    On the amendment on childcare, I should emphasise that there is a list of what constitutes infrastructure for the infrastructure levy, and it is a non-exhaustive list, so it will be possible for other items to be included. It is drafted purposefully to give local authorities wide powers to apply the levy to infrastructure that is important and needed in their local area. It contains illustrative examples of what might be included as infrastructure, but in any event the levy will be able to be spent on childcare facilities such as nurseries and pre-schools, as these fall under the definition of

    “schools and other educational facilities”

    already included in the list.

    Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

    I know the Minister has tried to take account of these concerns, but from what she has just said, it is not the case that childcare would, unless it is connected to a school, be considered part of this. So what amendment 2 does is set out that, whether it is a nursery, a toy library or a childminding setting, if local councils felt that was something that needed to be done, they could work with developers to deliver it. Will she make that commitment, and most importantly will she write it down? It is one thing to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box, but those of us who have dealt with local government know that it needs to be in the guidance and regulations for us to truly declare that childcare is infrastructure.

    Lucy Frazer

    I totally understand the hon. Lady’s points, and it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of

    “schools and other educational facilities”,

    which is in the list at proposed new section 204N(3)(c). There is also a question about the provision of the care within that: that would not fall within the definition of infrastructure per se, but proposed new section 204N(5) allows regulations to make provision about when local authorities could apply levy money to non-infrastructure items, which could include subsidising the cost of childcare places for parents and carers if this was considered a priority by the local area.

    I want to give Members across the House an opportunity to speak in this debate. We believe that our amendments focus on making the planning system, and the systems that interact with it, work better, innovating and improving for the benefit of all our constituents, and I commend them to the House.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on Unadopted Roads on New Housing Estates

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on Unadopted Roads on New Housing Estates

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for so powerfully articulating his constituents’ and many other constituents’ concerns regarding unadopted roads. He talked about constituents who are often paying full council tax but are forced to live on private roads riddled with potholes and devoid of basic necessities such as streetlights, road signs or litter bins. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) also raised the matter of Knights Meadow, which is causing concerns. I believe we all can agree that, irrespective of whether a housing estate is old or new, no one should be forced to live on a street that is so poorly maintained that it negatively impacts their quality of life.

    First, I will directly respond to the recommendations that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has made, especially in relation to section 278 and section 38 agreements, as well as the guidance in Wales to which he referred. Then I would like to identify some of the steps that the Government are already taking to strengthen the enforcement powers of local authorities and to make sure that roads are properly maintained. Then I will address some of the broader points raised by my hon. Friend.

    I take this opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to working with him and Members across this House to make sure that we can find the right solutions to the problems he has highlighted. I am not only happy to, but would be delighted to meet him and share the benefits of his research and expertise and to discuss this issue in more depth so that we can find the right answers to these questions.

    Turning now to my hon. Friend’s recommendations, he mentioned that in Wales a good practice guide has been adopted by local highway authorities and house building federations. He noted that in the pre-application stage, the highway authority is involved. If five or more properties are served by public highways, the highway authority serves an advance payments code notice on the developer within six weeks of building approval.

    In England, the Department for Transport has issued clear and simple guidance to councils to help them navigate some of the complexities surrounding new developments and the adoption, maintenance and upkeep of roads. They can use that guidance in those initial conversations with developers before a road is built, and long before they become major headaches for parties, not least homeowners themselves.

    The Department for Transport also published an advice note in 2017 on road adoption and made some significant updates to it in August this year, with some useful advice on bonds and fees. I would be happy and keen to talk to my hon. Friend about how we can further improve on this work that the DFT has done.

    Caroline Nokes

    My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about the guidance that the DFT has already published and given to major house builders. The point I want to make is that as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the developers in my constituency are major house builders. These are people who should have had this guidance over many years and who know how to build roads of an adoptable standard. Will my right hon. and learned Friend use the considerable heft of her Department to summon them in and suggest that they start using the guidance already available to them?

    Lucy Frazer

    My right hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, and I would also be very keen to speak to her on this issue, because she clearly has the same issues in her constituency, as we all do, and is very interested in this point. We do raise many issues with house builders, and I can add this to the list to raise, because it is important that the guidance is followed and that we get solutions.

    My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire suggested that England needs more national standards. As he knows, under the Highways Act 1980, section 38 agreements allow new roads built by developers to become public highways, with the cost of maintenance falling to the public purse. It is certainly possible for local highways authorities to adopt streets for which they are not currently responsible, but this is usually agreed at local level, not national level, between the developer and the council. It is true that councils can use section 38 to step in if a developer fails to keep its promises regarding a new road or street. The legislation already gives highways authorities the power to do that, but there is no legal obligation on them to do so, so ultimately it is a question for the relevant council. I understand that the Department for Transport’s position is that it does not intervene in operational issues, and that it does not have powers to make statutory or impose national standards. That said, I do think it is important we continue to discuss this issue to ascertain what more can be done.

    It is worth saying that the local highways authority cannot of course always adopt a road on a new development each and every time, not least because that may not be what residents themselves want. The road may also be incomplete or not built to the right standard, and the drainage may not yet have been adopted by the appropriate body. For whatever reason, when a road is not adopted by the local highway, liability for maintenance automatically falls to those who own the properties facing the road. What that looks like may vary depending on the housing development, but by and large estate rent charges are the main way in which residents pick up the tab for a road’s maintenance. The problem arises when homeowners are unexpectedly slapped with bills to maintain roads they did not even know they were responsible for and, worse, when they challenge the estate rent charges, they find that they have limited rights to do anything about it.

    Andrew Selous

    I am aware that some unadopted roads go back decades and decades, but it does concern me that in a major new development on the east of Leighton Buzzard in my constituency, where residents moved in only in 2003, the roads are still not adopted. It is 20 years later, and I really think it is entirely reasonable that the people buying those homes would think that these issues would have been sorted out by the developer with the agreement of the local authority. Does the Minister get the importance of these issues not just dragging on and on, and the need for quite swift resolution?

    Lucy Frazer

    I do totally understand the point. As a local MP, I have worked with developers and streets to get to the position where roads are adopted so that the local authority can take over. I totally understand the point my hon. Friend is making, and I look forward to the conversations we will have about how we can address this further.

    Coming back to the estate rent charges, we and the Government recognise that this is a real concern for homeowners, and we are actually tackling it. We intend to legislate to give freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates the equivalent rights of leaseholders, which means they will be able to directly challenge unfair estate rent charges. For the first time, they will be able to apply to the first-tier tribunal to appoint a new manager who can better handle the estate rent charges and is more responsive to what residents want, because as my hon. Friend said in his speech, they sometimes think they can do this better than the developers or agencies themselves.

    My hon. Friend also talked about his concerns when developers fail to build roads to adoptable standards. When that happens, we want councils to take the toughest possible enforcement action. This is where the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently going through this House, has a pivotal role to play in strengthening the hand of councils. Our reforms will remove the current four-year time limit that applies to some breaches; in future, it will be 10 years for all breaches of planning control. We are also doubling the maximum period of temporary stop notices from 28 to 56 days, and at the same time we are focused on closing existing loopholes that let developers obtain planning permission after a breach has occurred.

    Caroline Nokes

    May I just ask the Minister whether any of those powers will apply retrospectively, or is this just going forward? Will my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and I still be dealing with a 20-year-old case in his constituency and one that has certainly been rumbling on for 10 years in mine when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has passed?

    Lucy Frazer

    I am very happy to get back to my right hon. Friend, but I assume that in any event the maximum is 10 years for a breach of the planning controls.

    Caroline Nokes

    Very briefly on that specific point, we have existing problems, but my question is whether the new legislation will act retrospectively to tackle the existing problems, or is this only going to solve future problems that have not yet occurred in developments yet to be built?

    Lucy Frazer

    I am very happy to get back to my right hon. Friend on that specific point, but we do recognise that if developers flout the rules and breach conditions they will also run the risk of being hit with unlimited fines.

    The status quo is that when a new development is granted planning permission, councils can use section 106 planning obligations to make sure developers build roads to an adoptable standard. It is important to stress that when residents have a complaint about the local planning and highways authority that has not been adequately resolved, they can also complain to the local government and social care ombudsman.

    I want to finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North for securing and taking part in this debate. It is an important issue, and we in the Government do not underestimate for a second the misery that unadopted roads can inflict on our residents. Be in no doubt that we get it that poorly constructed, poorly maintained and poorly funded roads and street lights blight neighbourhoods, erode people’s pride in the place they live and, ultimately, can ruin lives. Where loopholes have been exploited, councils have been lacking enforcement powers and homebuyers have found themselves powerless to challenge unfair bills, we are already changing the law to put things right. I am very grateful for the constructive thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire on where there is further room for improvement, and I look forward to further conversations.

    We are committed to working with councils, the housing industry and hon. Members from both sides of the House to raise the bar on the quality and safety of roads and streets in all developments, and to level up communities by ensuring that vital infrastructure and services are right there on the door step when they are needed. That is our ambition, and that is what we are determined to do.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lucy Frazer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Frazer on 2015-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps the Government is taking to improve science education.

    Nick Gibb

    Science is vital to our economy and science skills are in high demand. Our reforms to the curriculum and qualifications are designed to ensure young people acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in a modern economy and to progress.

    Bursaries and scholarships of up to £30,000 are designed to attract the best science graduates into teaching. We have also announced £67m to train up to 17,500 new and existing maths and physics teachers by 2020.

    We also fund a range of programmes to provide high quality professional development for science teachers.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Comments on Rishi Sunak Becoming Prime Minister

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Comments on Rishi Sunak Becoming Prime Minister

    The comments made by Lucy Frazer, the Conservative MP for South East Cambridgeshire, on Twitter on 21 October 2022.

    I’m backing Rishi Sunak for PM. We are facing serious economic challenges as a country. Having worked with Rishi at the Treasury I know he has the skills and experience to provide the leadership we need.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Statement on Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Statement on Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits

    The statement made by Lucy Frazer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 5 July 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That provision may be made for, and in connection with, imposing a charge on ring fence profits of companies (within the meaning of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010).

    This Bill deals with the taxation of extraordinary profits in the oil and gas sector, but it is important to remember that its effect is to allow us to focus on supporting families up and down the country at this difficult economic time. The Bill will help us to raise revenues and support families while continuing to encourage investment in North sea oil and gas.

    Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)

    I wonder whether the Treasury has made any assessment yet of how much money will be raised by this windfall tax, given the debt that will need to be taken on as a result of the tax cut for those drilling for fossil fuels. Is there an estimate of how much the Minister intends to raise by these means?

    Lucy Frazer

    The estimate of the amount that the measure will raise is £5 billion over the course of the first year. I start by highlighting the context for our introducing the Bill. The oil and gas sector is making extraordinary profits. Those profits are not the result of recent changes to risk-taking, innovation or efficiencies; they are the result of surging global commodity prices, driven in part by Russia’s war. The profits are over and above what analysts and businesses in the sector could have expected to earn. Indeed, since early last year, oil prices have nearly doubled and gas prices have more than doubled. The Bill is being introduced at a time when many of our constituents are struggling with the cost of living, and at a time when we have said that the Government will support the most vulnerable and the least well off in getting the support that they need.

    I would like to touch on how the Bill ensures that we tax extraordinary profits fairly while incentivising investment. To do that, we are introducing the energy profits levy, a new 25% surcharge on the extraordinary profits that the oil and gas sector is making. At the same time, the new 80% investment allowance will mean that businesses will, overall, get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest. This provides them with an additional immediate incentive to invest. That nearly doubles the tax relief available and means that the more investment a firm makes, the less they will pay. As set out in the energy security strategy, the north will still be a foundation of our energy security, so it is right that we continue to encourage investment in oil and gas. The Government expect the energy profits levy, with the investment allowance, to lead to an overall increase in investment.

    I want to make clear what the investment allowance will apply to. First, the allowance will be calculated in the same way as the investment allowance for the existing supplementary charge. Therefore, if capital or operating expenditure qualifies for the supplementary charge allowance, it will qualify for the energy profits levy allowance, but unlike the supplementary charge, it will be available to companies at the point of investment. This makes it both more immediate and more generous. As the levy is targeted at the extraordinary profits from oil and gas upstream activities, it makes sense that any relief for investment must also be related to oil and gas upstream activities. Such spending can be used to decarbonise oil and gas production—for example, through electrification—so any capital expenditure on electrification, as long as it relates to specific oil activities within the ringfence, will qualify for the allowance. Examples of activity that may be carried out for specific oil activities include expenditure on plant and machinery such as generators, which includes wind turbines, transformers and wiring.

    We have also been listening closely to feedback from industry. We published draft legislation for the Bill on 21 June to seek technical feedback. Two weeks ago, the former Chancellor met industry stakeholders in Aberdeen to discuss the levy—not just to communicate the aims of the levy and how it will fund vital support for families, but to ensure that the levy works as the Government intended. That is why I can confirm that the Government are making a change to the legislation. I confirm that tax repayments that oil and gas companies received for petroleum revenue tax related to losses generated by decommissioning expenditure will not be taxed under the levy. Since wider decommissioning expenditure is also left out of account for the levy, that change is consistent and fair. We are very grateful for the engagement that we have had with industry on the matter. When the Bill is published, this will be made clear. To reassure the House, with this change, the Government still expect the levy to raise about £5 billion over the next year.

    Finally, let me turn to how long the levy will be in place. It will take effect from 26 May this year and it will be phased out when oil and gas prices return to historically more normal levels. A sunset clause will also be written into the legislation so that, by the end of 2025, the levy will automatically cease to be in place. The energy profits levy is temporary, with a set lifespan that raises about £5 billion revenue over the next year, so that we can help families with the cost of living in the shape of significant, targeted support to millions of the most vulnerable.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on VAT on Defibrillators

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech on VAT on Defibrillators

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 22 June 2022.

    It is a privilege to respond to this Adjournment debate on behalf of the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing this evening’s debate. As we have heard, this follows last year’s tragic death of her constituent, Dylan Rich, at the age of just 17. It is also terrible to hear of the tragic death of Danny, the son of Bill and Pam Shurmer.

    I commend my hon. Friends for the energy with which they are campaigning for a change in policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned, she and I met the Prime Minister and the representatives from the West Bridgford Colts Football Club in March to discuss this issue. What she has said has touched all of us, and I wish to express again my condolences to Dylan’s family, who themselves have campaigned extremely hard on this issue, as well as to Pam and to Bill.

    I have heard my hon. Friend’s argument and those of others here this evening. In answering the debate, I will briefly outline the Government’s thinking and approach. Let me begin by saying that we appreciate the importance of this issue. Automated external defibrillators—or AEDs—save lives. Understanding that, we have sought to boost their provision in many different ways. The Government encourage organisations across England to consider purchasing a defibrillator as part of their first aid equipment.

    Many community defibrillators have been provided in public locations, including in shopping centres, through national lottery funding, community fundraising schemes, workplace funding or charities. The Government have also previously provided significant direct funding for the purchase of AEDs. In the 2015 Budget, the Government announced a £l million grant to support the purchase of public access AEDs. This was followed up by a further £1 million at the 2016 Budget. These schemes were operated by the British Heart Foundation. After the first round of funding in 2015, the foundation announced that more than 700 additional AEDs had been installed across the UK.

    In addition, from May 2020, the Government have required all contractors refurbishing schools, or building new ones, through centrally delivered programmes to provide at least one AED. As things stand, there are already more than 43,000 registered AEDs in England.

    The Government have also worked with the British Heart Foundation to develop “the circuit”, a national defibrillator network, which records information on unregistered AEDs, such as those in shops and restaurants. The circuit is now live in 13 of the 14 ambulance services across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This information is available in a centralised network for easy access in emergencies, meaning that ambulance services can find AEDs when they are most needed. The system also sends out reminders to make sure that AEDs are maintained and emergency-ready.

    Meanwhile, the NHS Long Term Plan, published in January 2019, includes a section on cardiovascular disease and AEDs. The NHS has committed to developing a national network of first responders and access to AEDs, which will save roughly 4,000 lives a year by 2028.

    Tax relief also has a part to play. VAT is not charged on AEDs donated, for example, to the NHS, rescue and first aid charities, and charities caring for disabled people. Local authorities and taxable businesses can also recover VAT on AEDs. The point of all of this is to say that there are existing reliefs, as well as historical funding and other initiatives, which are significantly improving access to AEDs up and down the country.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made a point about extending VAT relief. As she said, we have examined the specific merits of zero-rating AEDs. We are conscious that pass-through of a VAT relief on AEDs to consumer prices is likely to be low. Evidence on pass-through of VAT reliefs generally suggests that where markets are concentrated—as they are for AEDs—pass-through tends to be significantly less than 50%. In other words, a new zero rate would not necessarily lead to a reduction in prices. Instead, businesses might choose to absorb the tax relief as profit. If we are to take this step, we need to be sure that zero-rating AEDs would represent genuine value for money and make a real difference in expanding public access to AEDs.

    As my hon. Friend recognised, we also have a wider responsibility, at a time of economic challenge, to minimise pressure on the public finances. However, I am grateful to her for all the work she has done, and continues to do, to bring this issue to public attention. I also recognise the campaigning work done by Pam and Bill, who are grieving the sad loss of their son, Danny. Therefore, notwithstanding the point I have made about VAT, I want to be clear to Members here today that, as we remember Dylan and Danny, we will continue to look at what more the Government can do to expand access to AEDs. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the Department of Health and Social Care to examine whether there are ways to further expand public access to defibrillators, and I have spoken to the Minister responsible—the Minister for patient safety—about this very issue. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), we know that AEDs save lives.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech to the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5) Summit

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Speech to the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5) Summit

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 17 May 2022.

    Introduction

    A very good afternoon, everyone.

    It’s brilliant to see so many of you here in London… together in person for the first time, I believe, since Sydney 2020.

    I also want to extend a warm welcome to the Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement and their teams of experts. And to the many delegates from international industry partners and the Wolfsburg Group who are joining throughout the week.

    On behalf of the UK government, let me say that we’re delighted to host this summit, and absolutely committed to our role as a founding member of the J5.

    It’s a ground-breaking alliance, which is doing things in ways that haven’t been tried before. And truly making ‘the world a smaller place for tax criminals’.

    Understanding the threat

    The UK, for its part, is taking action on tax crime hard and fast.

    Giving HM Revenue and Customs a range of new asset recovery and ‘proceeds of crime’ powers.

    Introducing a ground-breaking ‘failure to prevent’ piece of legislation, which means that HMRC now has several corporations under live criminal investigation.

    And adopting a tougher stance on offshore evasion.

    But tax fraud is a perennial and persistent threat to all our nations.

    And unity, transparency and collaboration will be essential if we’re to tackle it.

    Because, put simply, tax cheats flourish when we fail to work together.

    And every scrap of information left behind by fraudsters – in any one of our jurisdictions – is a potential lead in the fight against global tax crime.

    By joining forces, we undermine the global criminal community in ways we could not do alone.

    So, this conference isn’t just a great opportunity to celebrate everything we’ve already achieved together.

    It’s also a chance to share ideas and expertise. To renew our collective ambition. And to design and develop the next steps in this crucial fight.

    The speed of change

    I was appointed Financial Secretary to the Treasury last September, with international tax policy as an important part of my portfolio.

    Since then, I’ve learned a great deal.

    In particular, I’ve been struck by the furious speed at which tax fraud evolves.

    Fraud is becoming ever more complex and international. And in some ways that’s a compliment to all of the J5 partners.

    It’s not easy to commit tax fraud and get away with it.

    But as we’ve closed the net, criminals have upped their game.

    Evaders are using increasingly complex and diverse structures to avoid detection.

    Money launderers are using complex multi-jurisdictional transaction chains to hide transactions.

    And organised criminals are using and abusing complex corporate structures to mask the top-tier criminals masterminding the fraud.

    We’ve seen the movement of money and capital become increasingly fluid as historical, physical and geographical barriers to trade have slipped away.

    The rise of the ‘global citizen’ means that tax criminals may be based in one country, but have trusts and bank accounts scattered across many others.

    Of course, it’s not easy for a criminal to set up such an intricate web alone.

    And this is a crucial point.

    The UK’s HMRC team tell me they’re increasingly seeing criminals harnessing professional help, direction and support – particularly in cases involving offshore entities.

    In other words, it’s not just the role of the fraudster that’s evolving… it’s also that of the enabler.

    A crime with victims

    Of course, perhaps due to its complex nature. tax fraud is sometimes perceived as something of a victimless crime.

    But that’s simply not the case.

    The damage can be hard to visualise – especially when those directly involved in supply chain fraud or importing illicit goods are operating thousands of miles away, hidden behind complex webs of corporate structures or criminal enablers…

    But it’s all too stark for the retiree who discovers too late that their tax, national insurance or workplace pension contributions have been fraudulently redirected by a payroll company. And that they can no longer afford the life they have worked so hard to build.

    Or for the teenager trafficked to a foreign country to work in illicit factories manufacturing tobacco products, funded by the fraudulent activity of organised criminal gangs.

    The emotional and financial costs can be lifechanging.

    The impacts of tax crime can filter through into wider society.

    Associated profits are used to fund other sorts of crime in our communities, giving criminals the financial means to corrupt and exert their power at home.

    And while fraud is hugely damaging to its direct and indirect victims, it also ruins the lives of its perpetrators and their families. What a waste.

    International co-operation

    A big part of the solution, as I say, is international cooperation.

    We’ve already shown it can be done.

    Last year, here in London, we saw the G7 strike a game-changing agreement on global tax reform. Ensuring large multinationals pay tax of at least 15% on their profits. And reforming taxation rules to ensure a greater share of multinationals’ profit is taxed in the countries in which their customers are located.

    The J5 too has made some notable steps forward.

    I was particularly excited to hear about ‘The Challenge’ held last March – an event which brought together investigators, experts and data scientists to track down fraudsters using cryptocurrency to facilitate tax crimes.

    Very far from a ‘talking shop’, ‘The Challenge’ led to real action. Including the identification of a number of suspect companies in each J5 nation.

    Another example of the J5’s success is the arrest and charging of 10 individuals involved in a years-long, multimillion dollar investment and impersonation scheme.

    The defendants were able to defraud millions of dollars from individuals across the globe.

    They were operating across multiple countries, impersonating respected investment firms, producing fake documents and hiding behind fabricated identities.

    But it was thanks to collaboration between J5 members that we were able to piece together the jigsaw of evidence scattered around the globe.

    We cannot be complacent

    We should be proud of what we’ve achieved together. Of course we should.

    But this is no time to be complacent.

    During the pandemic, we saw an increase in fraudsters identifying and exploiting new and essential products developed in the fight against Covid-19.

    We must be alert not just to what criminals are doing now, but ahead of them in thinking what might be possible in the future.

    Here in the UK, we continue to take steps to tackle tax fraud and evasion.

    We’ve introduced an additional 20 measures since last year – and are forecast to raise an estimated £6.3 billion over the next 5 years.

    There’s also ‘Making Tax Digital’, our pioneering new way for businesses to keep their tax records in a modern, digital, fit-for-purpose system.

    It’s improving efficiency, accuracy and transparency in our tax system. And removing the opportunity for fraudsters to exploit systems built for a different age.

    The UK Government has also recently provided almost £300 million for HMRC to invest in additional support across all forms of compliance activity.

    We’ve invested in HMRC’s illicit finances capability, to tackle the enablers of serious fraud, focusing on the illicit financial transactions that underpin tax crime.

    This increased capacity for tackling tax crime at home can only bolster the data and technological capabilities we can share with our J5 partners.

    In addition, the UK continues to spearhead the Common Reporting Standard, which provides greater transparency through the automatic exchange of taxpayer account information.

    I’m delighted that more than 100 jurisdictions have signed up to the CRS.

    This means that fraudsters in these jurisdictions can no longer benefit from secrecy rules used to hide transactions that would otherwise be flagged as a cause for concern.

    Indeed, this significant increase in global transparency has seen HMRC bring in more than £500 million to date, directly through Automatic Exchange Agreements such as the Common Reporting Standard.

    It’s also encouraging to see new important developments that increase international tax transparency, and reduce the scope for hiding assets and profits, even more.

    The UK is the first major economy to commit to the OECD’s new Mandatory Disclosure Rules. These require disclosure of arrangements designed to avoid CRS reporting or hide the beneficial ownership of assets.

    The UK is also committed to the new OECD Model Rules for Digital Platforms that require the reporting of sales on internet platforms. And we welcome the development of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, another significant new transparency initiative.

    Public-Private collaboration

    The State, of course, is integral to tackling tax crime. And we can do a lot.

    But for reforms to be successful and long-lasting, they need to be made in conjunction with the private sector.

    Governments can work to regulate or provide guidance, but it’s ultimately the private sector that determines who can access the financial system.

    The private sector also plays a huge role in funding the mechanisms used to fight economic crime. By investing in sophisticated new technologies that undertake transactional risking and protect consumers from fraud. As well as ensuring that their operating models comply with reporting requirements.

    For all those reasons, we‘ve invested in these partnerships – expanding our capability in intelligence flows, risk alerts and behavioural insight. And they are already paying dividends.

    Cooperation between HMRC and the private sector recently meant we were able to work together to prevent losses of more than £50 million following a systematic attack on our Self-Assessment taxation system.

    I know that cooperation is being replicated across the J5. And I’m really excited to see what’s achieved as a result.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Taxation relies on trust.

    Trust between a Government and its citizens that rates will be set fairly and transparently.

    And trust that individuals and businesses will be held accountable if they fail to pay what is due.

    Tax crime undermines that trust.

    But everything you do – that we do together – restores it.

    We can – and we must – continue doing everything we can… to collaborate, to innovate, and to eliminate the loopholes criminals seek to exploit.

    Henry Ford, the great American industrialist, once said that “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”

    Well, we’ve already ‘come together’… through the J5.

    This week will help us ‘keep together’… showing our joint commitment to make progress in the fight against global tax crime and showing tax criminals that our resolve is unwavering.

    And, in the months and years ahead, we must continue to ‘work together’.

    Because the importance of this… for our economies… for our societies… means we cannot do anything less.

    Thank you very much.