Number of Tory MPs think PM won’t follow through and introduce COVID domestic vaccine passports

Published

4 years ago

July 29, 2021

admin

A number of Conservative MPs have told Sky News they do not think the government will follow through and actually introduce domestic vaccine passports.

The prospect of people having to prove their COVID-19 status to access a range of venues has been raised in recent weeks.

Boris Johnson has already said that individuals will need to be fully vaccinated to go to nightclubs from the end of September – and proof of a negative COVID test will no longer be sufficient.

Universities, music events and sporting fixtures have all been mentioned as possible other settings for certification.

More than 40 Conservatives recently signed a declaration from the campaign group Big Brother Watch expressing opposition to the idea.

Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories, told Sky News that vaccine passports for domestic use would be a “massive step and a misguided one”.

“The policy would discriminate against the young, against those who have medical or ethical reasons why they can’t be vaccinated and many ethnic minority groups,” he said.

“Fundamentally, people’s decision on whether to be vaccinated or not must be a personal decision for them to make based on their own assessment of the benefits and risks.”

Some Tory MPs contacted by Sky News say they think the prime minister is bluffing in a bid to increase vaccine uptake, while others expressed their belief that the government would pull any vote on the matter if there is a realistic prospect of them losing.

“I don’t think they will,” Wellingborough MP Peter Bone said when asked if he thinks the government will follow through and introduce vaccine passports.

Mr Bone said he thinks ministers want to “nudge” young people into getting the jab by raising the prospect of them needing to be fully vaccinated to access venues like nightclubs.

He said he was against vaccine passports because they are “identity papers by the back door” and risked creating a “two class society”.

Craig Mackinlay, meanwhile, said he thinks the government is adopting a “carrot and stick approach” to increase vaccine take-up.

“I hope that is as far as these plans go,” the MP for South Thanet said.

“I really do believe that,” Mr Mackinlay added, referencing his view that vaccine passports ultimately will not be introduced.

He said the policy would entail a “massive change to the relationship between the state and the individual”, highlighting the possibility of vaccine passports for universities as a “very dangerous step”.

“Broadly we are a party that believes in individual freedom,” he said.

Sky News has been told that if the matter was put to a vote, as many as 50 Conservative MPs could vote against.

A senior Tory MP said there was an “almost universal objection” in the parliamentary party to vaccine passports.

They added that they would be “very surprised” if the measure made it through without Labour support, adding that the “only thing” that will stop the government trying to implement the policy is if they were “convinced” they would lose a Commons vote.

Mr Bone said fellow Tories in parliament were “quite horrified” about the prospect and a “significant number” would vote against the government if it comes to it.

And he expressed the view that Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove is the driving force behind the policy, rather than the PM.

Andrew Bridgen described vaccine passports as “completely unnecessary, bureaucratic and unworkable”, adding that they would “create a divided society”.

He accused the government of engaging in “sabre-rattling” as part of a “crude attempt to coerce young people to take the vaccine”.

The North West Leicestershire MP said he thinks the government will pull any Commons vote on the matter if there is the prospect of a defeat.

If it is put to MPs, Mr Bridgen said it will be a “defining moment for Boris Johnson’s premiership and future of the Conservative Party”.

One Conservative MP who is in favour of the idea is Sir Roger Gale, who represents North Thanet.

“I have no problem with them at all, I think they’re a very good thing,” he told Sky News when asked about vaccine passports.

Sir Roger said the policy is a “no-brainer” and he would vote for it, but he acknowledged there may be an “element of bluff” in it to drive up vaccination numbers.

Were vaccine passports to become a reality, he said they should not “morph into an ID card” and should have an “expiry date”.

A government spokesperson said: “There has been no change to our plans to introduce vaccine certification in September.

“The government is focussed on protecting the public and reducing the impact of the virus, including mandating COVID certification in certain settings.

“Vaccines are the best possible way to protect you and your family against the virus and we strongly encourage people to come forward.”

Politics

US CLARITY bill could allow Tesla and Meta to evade SEC rules — Senator Warren

Published

4 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

US CLARITY bill could allow Tesla and Meta to evade SEC rules — Senator Warren

The legislation to establish crypto market structure is one of three bills the US House of Representatives is expected to consider starting next week.

Politics

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

The idea of a wealth tax has raised its head – yet again – as the government attempts to balance its books.

Downing Street refused to rule out a wealth tax after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock told Sky News he thinks the government should introduce one.

Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

While there has never been a wealth tax in the UK, the notion was raised under Rishi Sunak after the COVID years – and rejected – and both Harold Wilson’s and James Callaghan’s Labour governments in the 1970s seriously considered implementing one.

Sky News looks at what a wealth tax is, how it could work in the UK, and which countries already have one.

What is a wealth tax?

A wealth tax is aimed at reducing economic inequality to redistribute wealth and to raise revenue.

It is a direct levy on all, or most of, an individual’s, household’s or business’s total net wealth, rather than their income.

The tax typically includes the total market value of assets, including savings, investments, property and other forms of wealth – minus a person’s debts.

Unlike capital gains tax, which is paid when an asset is sold at a profit, a wealth tax is normally an annual charge based on the value of assets owned, even if they are not sold.

A one-off wealth tax, often used after major crises, could also be an option to raise a substantial amount of revenue in one go.

How could it work in the UK?

Advocates of a UK wealth tax, including Lord Kinnock, have proposed an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.

Wealth tax campaign group Tax Justice UK has calculated this would affect about 20,000 people – fewer than 0.04% of the population – and raise £24bn a year.

Because of how few people would pay it, Tax Justice says that would make it easy for HMRC to collect the tax.

The group proposes people self-declare asset values, backed up by a compliance team at HMRC who could have a register of assets.

Which countries have or have had a wealth tax?

In 1990, 12 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries had a net wealth tax, but just four have one now: Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

France and Italy levy wealth taxes on selected assets.

Colombia

Since 2023, residents in the South American country are subject to tax on their worldwide wealth, but can exclude the value of their household up to 509m pesos (£92,500).

The tax is progressive, ranging from a 0.5% rate to 1.5% for the most wealthy until next year, then 1% for the wealthiest from 2027.

Norway

There is a 0.525% municipal wealth tax for individuals with net wealth exceeding 1.7m kroner (about £125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses.

Norway also has a state wealth tax of 0.475% based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of 1.7m kroner (£125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses, and 0.575% for net wealth in excess of 20.7m kroner (£1.5m).

The maximum combined wealth tax rate is 1.1%.

The Norwegian Labour coalition government also increased dividend tax to 20% in 2023, and with the wealth tax, it prompted about 80 affluent business owners, with an estimated net worth of £40bn, to leave Norway.

Spain

Residents in Spain have to pay a progressive wealth tax on worldwide assets, with a €700,000 (£600,000) tax free allowance per person in most areas and homes up to €300,000 (£250,000) tax exempt.

The progressive rate goes from 0.2% for taxable income for assets of €167,129 (£144,000) up to 3.5% for taxable income of €10.6m (£9.146m) and above.

It has been reported that more than 12,000 multimillionaires have left Spain since the government introduced the higher levy at the end of 2022.

Switzerland

All of the country’s cantons (districts) have a net wealth tax based on a person’s taxable net worth – different to total net worth.

It takes into account the balance of an individual’s worldwide gross assets, including bank account balances, bonds, shares, life insurances, cars, boats, properties, paintings, jewellery – minus debts.

Switzerland also works on a progressive rate, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, with a relatively low starting point at which people are taxed on their wealth, such as 50,000 CHF (£46,200) in several cantons.

Politics

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

Published

9 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

The Chinese owner of British Steel has held fresh talks with government officials in a bid to break the impasse over ministers’ determination not to compensate it for seizing control of the company.

Sky News has learnt that executives from Jingye Group met senior civil servants from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) late last week to discuss ways to resolve the standoff.

Whitehall sources said the talks had been cordial, but that no meaningful progress had been made towards a resolution.

Money blog: €1 home goes on sale – but there are T&Cs

Jingye wants the government to agree to pay it hundreds of millions of pounds for taking control of British Steel in April – a move triggered by the Chinese group’s preparations for the permanent closure of its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.

Such a move would have cost thousands of jobs and ended Britain’s centuries-old ability to produce virgin steel.

Jingye had been in talks for months to seek £1bn in state aid to facilitate the Scunthorpe plant’s transition to greener steelmaking, but was offered just half that sum by ministers.

British Steel has not yet been formally nationalised, although that remains a probable outcome.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has previously dismissed the idea of compensating Jingye, saying British Steel’s equity was essentially worthless.

Last month, he met his Chinese counterpart, where the issue of British Steel was discussed between the two governments in person for the first time.

Jingye has hired the leading City law firm Linklaters to explore the recovery of hundreds of millions of pounds it invested in the Scunthorpe-based company before the government seized control of it.

News of last week’s meeting comes as British steelmakers face an anxious wait to learn whether their exports to the US face swingeing tariffs as part of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Sky News’s economics and data editor, Ed Conway, revealed this week that the UK would miss a White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week.

Jingye declined to comment, while a spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We acted quickly to ensure the continued operations of the blast furnaces but recognise that securing British Steel’s long-term future requires private sector investment.

“We have not nationalised British Steel and are working closely with Jingye on options for the future, and we will continue work on determining the best long-term sustainable future for the site.”