Author: admin

  • Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Altmann on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to offer relief to unincorporated employers who are at risk of personal bankruptcy as a result of significant increases in defined benefit pension deficits in Non-Associated Multi-Employer Schemes following the rise in annuity costs associated with the falls in long-term interest rates in recent years; and if so, what relief will be made available.

    Lord Freud

    We have recently consulted on problems faced by non-associated multi-employer schemes (NAMES) and had representations from various interested parties. We will be responding in due course.

  • Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Altmann on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken to ensure that (1) employers, and (2) employees earning under £11,000 a year, understand the consequences of using a net pay arrangement on entitlement to tax relief.

    Lord Young of Cookham

    The Pensions Regulator provides guidance to employers on choosing a pension scheme for their staff in order to discharge their statutory obligations under automatic enrolment. This guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax.

    The Government’s latest analysis of the eligibility of workers for automatic enrolment was published on 13 October 2016 in ‘Workplace Pensions: Update of analysis on Automatic Enrolment’. Information on age and earnings breakdowns for all workers can be found in table 3a on page 6, and is available in the report titled: Workplace pensions: Update of Analysis on Automatic Enrolment 2016, which is available on the gov.uk website.

    The Government does not collect data on the number of workers earning less than the personal allowance who are also members of pension schemes that operate a net pay system. The Government does not hold employee level data on employees enrolled in net pay pension schemes, as such schemes are not obliged to report pension contributions to HM Revenue and Customs. The Government does not therefore hold information on the value of tax reliefs paid out to employees in net pay schemes.

  • Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Altmann on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that workers who are contributing to a workplace pension, and who earn less than £11,000 a year, are able to receive the government contribution to their pension for which they are eligible; and what action they are taking to ensure that such earners are not disadvantaged by losing out on the 25 per cent top-up to which they are entitled.

    Lord Young of Cookham

    The Pensions Regulator provides guidance to employers on choosing a pension scheme for their staff in order to discharge their statutory obligations under automatic enrolment. This guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax.

    The Government’s latest analysis of the eligibility of workers for automatic enrolment was published on 13 October 2016 in ‘Workplace Pensions: Update of analysis on Automatic Enrolment’. Information on age and earnings breakdowns for all workers can be found in table 3a on page 6, and is available in the report titled: Workplace pensions: Update of Analysis on Automatic Enrolment 2016, which is available on the gov.uk website.

    The Government does not collect data on the number of workers earning less than the personal allowance who are also members of pension schemes that operate a net pay system. The Government does not hold employee level data on employees enrolled in net pay pension schemes, as such schemes are not obliged to report pension contributions to HM Revenue and Customs. The Government does not therefore hold information on the value of tax reliefs paid out to employees in net pay schemes.

  • Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Altmann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Altmann on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess the number of people earning less than £11,000 a year who are auto-enrolled or paying into net pay arrangement workplace pension schemes.

    Lord Young of Cookham

    The Pensions Regulator provides guidance to employers on choosing a pension scheme for their staff in order to discharge their statutory obligations under automatic enrolment. This guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax.

    The Government’s latest analysis of the eligibility of workers for automatic enrolment was published on 13 October 2016 in ‘Workplace Pensions: Update of analysis on Automatic Enrolment’. Information on age and earnings breakdowns for all workers can be found in table 3a on page 6, and is available in the report titled: Workplace pensions: Update of Analysis on Automatic Enrolment 2016, which is available on the gov.uk website.

    The Government does not collect data on the number of workers earning less than the personal allowance who are also members of pension schemes that operate a net pay system. The Government does not hold employee level data on employees enrolled in net pay pension schemes, as such schemes are not obliged to report pension contributions to HM Revenue and Customs. The Government does not therefore hold information on the value of tax reliefs paid out to employees in net pay schemes.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, and to what extent, the expert panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has concluded that a potentially viable pregnancy with normal karyotype can be achieved through pronuclear transfer based on the accompanying images of the relevant karyotypes in figures or other supporting data presented in Reproductive BioMedicine Online published in October.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the independent expert panel are currently reviewing the latest evidence of safety and efficacy for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer. The panel has not yet reached its conclusions. It is anticipated that the panel’s report will be published by the end of the year.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 8 June (HL359) and 16 June (HL388) on the subject of violence against women and girls, whether the British Embassy in Pyongyang or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have raised the issue of rape and sexual violence of women and girls by North Korean public officials with North Korea since June 2016.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have not raised this specific issue since the previous answers (HL359 and HL388) in June 2016. However, we continue to raise our concerns on human rights directly with the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Most recently, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my Honourable Friend the member for Reading West (Mr Sharma), summoned the Ambassador for the DPRK to the Foreign Commonwealth Office, where Mr Sharma made clear our concerns that the regime was prioritising its nuclear and ballistic missile programme ahead of the welfare of its people. In addition, we are currently working with partners at the UN General Assembly Third Committee on a strong resolution to maintain international attention on the human rights situation in the DPRK.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 16 June (HL392), whether the British Embassy in North Korea had presented a copy of the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to North Korean officials by 10 October.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    As stated in answer HL392, the British Embassy in Pyongyang presented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with a statement supporting the UN Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) findings from the former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire). This statement was rejected by the MFA. The DPRK is fully aware of the COI report’s findings, but refuses to substantively engage on human rights issues and regularly denounces the UN COI report as a politically motivated fabrication.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their reasons for not imposing human rights sanctions against designated North Korean persons suspected of mass human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We continue to have discussions with international partners about ways to increase the pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to improve its appalling human rights record. We are currently discussing a response to the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme at the UN Security Council. We are also discussing a further resolution on DPRK human rights at the UN General Assembly Third Committee to maintain the focus of international attention on their appalling human rights record.

    We will always consider the full range of measures at our disposal and carefully consider the impact and benefits of sanctions measures before they are imposed. These considerations include our ability to defend the legality of the sanctions should they be challenged under EU law and the likelihood of achieving our objective of a denuclearised DPRK which abides by international norms and respects the human rights of its citizens.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to raise the issue of stateless North Koreans with the government of China; and what steps they plan to take to aid stateless North Koreans in need if the government of China is unwilling to assist them.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are aware of reports of thirty North Koreans being sent back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) after a period of detention in China.

    Despite claims by the DPRK authorities that forcibly repatriated refugees are well treated and reintegrated into DPRK society, reports suggest that they are often mistreated by the authorities.

    We will raise the issue of non-refoulement at the next UK-China Human rights Dialogue, scheduled to take place this month.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the direct costs of the British Embassy in Pyongyang, broken down into (1) locally employed staff, (2) estate expenditure, (3) security, (4) vehicle costs, (5) travel, (6) subsistence and (7) allowances; and what is the cost of Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded activities broken down by individual projects in North Korea for 2016.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The total budget allocation for the British Embassy in Pyongyang this financial year is £203,627, which is used to cover a variety of costs including the estate, local travel, fuel and vehicle maintenance and local staff wages. For operational and security reasons we do not disclose the precise breakdown of the costs of maintaining certain posts. The bilateral programme fund budget for the British Embassy Pyongyang this financial year is approximately £235,000, which includes £200,000 for the British Council English Language Programme, £9,456 for a project to support disabled people in South Hamgyong and North Pyongan province, and £16,691 to provide a secure supply of drinking water to a remote North Korean community.