debates/debates2025-05-20a conversation_6
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-20a conversation_6

Nick Timothy:What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the double contributions convention in the UK-India free trade agreement on levels of tax revenue. \p Rachel Reeves: The trade deal that we have secured with India adds around £5 billion to the UK economy. On social security contributions, if somebody who works for an Indian business is posted to the UK, or someone from a UK business is posted to India, they will not pay two lots of contributions: if you are paying into the Indian provident fund in India, you will not be paying national insurance contributions here; and if you are paying national insurance contributions here, you will not be paying into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, to come to the UK to work from India you will need to pay just over £3,000 for the NHS surcharge to be able to access those services and £769 in visa fees, contributing to the UK Exchequer. \p Nick Timothy: I note that the Chancellor did not actually address the point of the cost to the Exchequer of the double contributions convention, which the Government has agreed with India. Indian workers sent here by their employers on intra-company transfers cost more in taxes than British workers, but that flips under this deal: Indian workers will be taxed less and cost less to employ than British rivals for doing the same jobs. That will not only cost the Treasury lost revenue, which the Chancellor did not admit, but displace British workers, suppress wages and increase immigration. Will the Chancellor commit now to monitoring the effects of the agreement and, if the data shows any of that happening, promise to scrap this charter for immigration with India? \p Rachel Reeves: This deal is worth £5 billion to the UK economy, and it also benefits British workers being posted by their company to work in India. The Conservatives are now in the absurd situation of opposing the US deal, the India deal and the deal with the EU. They are simply not serious. The India deal reduces tariffs on Scotch whisky by more than half and brings into the UK more good jobs paying decent wages—the Conservatives seem to be against that. \p Chris McDonald: Special steels business Paralloy in Billingham, in my constituency, has told me that uncertainty on international trade has recently left its customers running for the hills. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that now we have trade deals coming along like buses—with India, the US and the EU—we can offer reliability and confidence to important local businesses such as Paralloy that want to export to the world? \p Rachel Reeves: Steel is one of the sectors that will benefit particularly from the trade deals this Government have secured, freeing ourselves of tariffs on steel going into the US. Indeed, the deal we secured with the EU yesterday means that we avoid tariffs on steel being sold into European markets, as well as now being exempt from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is good for steel and good for jobs right across Britain.