Author: admin

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 3 February 2016 to Question 24171, what funding the Illegal Money Lending Team received in each of the last five years; and how much it will receive in each year until it becomes funded through a levy.

    Nick Boles

    Annual funding for the Illegal Money Lending Teams as reported to the Department by National Trading Standards was:

    Year

    England

    Wales

    2015/16 *

    £3,097,822

    £546,674

    2014/15

    £3,605,286

    £634,016

    2013/14

    £3,716,789

    £673,625

    2012/13

    £3,716,789

    £595,670

    2011/12**

    £3,716,789

    £653,625

    * * Additionally, for 2015/16 the FCA agreed to outsource work to a maximum of £880,000, split £748,000 to the England Team and £132,000 to the Wales Team. The FCA will outsource work to a maximum of £500,000 for 2016/17.

    ** Until the creation of NTS in April 2012, the teams were funded directly by BIS.

    BIS has committed to maintaining its funding of the teams at 2015/16 year levels for 2016/17. It is anticipated that levy funding will be in place from 2017/18.

  • Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jamie Reed on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will make it his policy that business rates generated by new nuclear development in Copeland will be retained by the billing authority.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Government has announced reforms to the business rates retention scheme which mean that, by the end of this Parliament, local government will keep 100% of locally raised business rates and 100% of the growth generated by new development. Over the coming months we will be working with local government on the details of the scheme.

    Ahead of final decisions, it is too early to assess what the impact of the reforms will be on individual areas’ spending power.

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 3 February 2016 to Question 24171, whether the change in funding for the Illegal Money Lending Team will result in a change in its levels of funding in real terms.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government is finalising funding arrangements for the enforcement of illegal money lending. These arrangements will ensure that the enforcement teams have the funding that they need to protect consumers from illegal loan sharks.

  • Seema Malhotra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Seema Malhotra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Seema Malhotra on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the (a) primary and (b) secondary policy purposes are of inheritance tax relief for estates left on death.

    Mr David Gauke

    There are several inheritance tax (IHT) reliefs and these have different policy purposes. Transfers between spouses, including civil partners, are exempt from IHT. Taken together with the IHT nil-rate band, these exemptions are designed to allow most estates to be passed on to beneficiaries without an inheritance tax liability. More targeted exemptions and reliefs have different purposes including encouraging charitable giving, ensuring that businesses and farms do not have to be broken up to pay the liability and ensuring estates of those in the armed services and our emergency services who die in active service are exempt from inheritance tax.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, at which offices the 4,000 staff of HM Revenue and Customs who are expected to live outside the reasonable travel to work area after the Building Our Future reorganisation work.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) Location Programme is the result of an extended period of consultation and deliberation. The Department has taken account of a number of criteria in reaching its decisions, including the quality of local transport links, the local labour market and future workforce supply, the cost of buildings and asset value, and the need to retain the staff and skills it needs to continue its transformation. These changes will reduce HMRC’s estates costs by around £100 million a year by 2025.

    HMRC conducted high level People Impact and Equality Assessments to inform its planning. The Department plans to update these once discussions have been held with its staff.

    HMRC’s modelling estimates that the majority of staff live within Reasonable Daily Travel of a regional centre. Reasonable Daily Travel is calculated in line with established HR policies and procedures. Every worker at HMRC will have a one-to-one meeting with their manager to discuss their individual circumstances.

  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress his Department has made on the replacement of the value for money assessment quantitative assessment tool for comparing private finance and conventional procurement options; and which PF1 and PF2 projects used (a) the original value for money assessment quantitative assessment tool or (b) any replacement tool.

    Greg Hands

    The Government’s approach to appraisal is set out in the Green Book. This provides a common, standard method for comparing all public spending decisions that use central government funding; the approach to appraising potential PPP projects is consistent with this central guidance.

    The quantitative assessment tool was in place from August 2004 until its withdrawal in December 2012, all projects which commenced between these dates should have used the tool. For details of specific projects during this period, please see the spreadsheet ‘Current projects as at 31 March 2014’ at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-finance-initiative-projects-2014-summary-data

    A replacement quantitative assessment tool has not been issued by HM Treasury due to the limitations of standard models; since December 2012 procuring authorities have undertaken appropriate quantitative assessment in accordance with the principles set out in the Green Book.

  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which of the unitary charges in the list of private finance initiative projects published by his Department on 15 December 2014 were (a) service charges, (b) interest charges and (c) other costs identified over the course of the contracts.

    Greg Hands

    Whilst the Treasury does collect and publish information on the unitary charges of PFI projects, we do not collect it broken down into its constituent parts, neither do we have the detailed financial models that would allow us to disaggregate the totals.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish equality impact assessments and cost benefit analysis produced as part of the programme of rationalisation of HM Revenue and Customs offices.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) Location Programme is the result of an extended period of consultation and deliberation. The Department has taken account of a number of criteria in reaching its decisions, including the quality of local transport links, the local labour market and future workforce supply, the cost of buildings and asset value, and the need to retain the staff and skills it needs to continue its transformation. These changes will reduce HMRC’s estates costs by around £100 million a year by 2025.

    HMRC conducted high level People Impact and Equality Assessments to inform its planning. The Department plans to update these once discussions have been held with its staff.

    HMRC’s modelling estimates that the majority of staff live within Reasonable Daily Travel of a regional centre. Reasonable Daily Travel is calculated in line with established HR policies and procedures. Every worker at HMRC will have a one-to-one meeting with their manager to discuss their individual circumstances.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when in January 2016 the decision to issue compulsory redundancy notices to 152 HM Revenue and Customs staff was made.

    Mr David Gauke

    Approval to proceed to compulsory redundancy for 152 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) staff was received from Civil Service Resourcing and the Cabinet Office following consultation with the departmental trade unions and a period of reflection. It was endorsed by HMRC’s Executive Committee and the final decision was taken by the Chief Executive on 28 January 2016.

    The 152 people affected are based in around 50 locations across the UK. HMRC is continuing to seek redeployment solutions for all those who wish it to do so.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, where the 152 staff who have been issued with compulsory redundancy notices by HM Revenue and Customs staff are based.

    Mr David Gauke

    Approval to proceed to compulsory redundancy for 152 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) staff was received from Civil Service Resourcing and the Cabinet Office following consultation with the departmental trade unions and a period of reflection. It was endorsed by HMRC’s Executive Committee and the final decision was taken by the Chief Executive on 28 January 2016.

    The 152 people affected are based in around 50 locations across the UK. HMRC is continuing to seek redeployment solutions for all those who wish it to do so.