UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on 2016-09-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the proportion of retail businesses that have designated an appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider for their sector in accordance with the EU ADR Directive.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government supports the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to help businesses and consumers save time and money when dealing with complaints. Approved ADR is available for every consumer to trader dispute in the UK.

    We have not estimated what proportion of retail businesses have a designated ADR provider as it is open to the retailer to choose a different ADR provider with the necessary skills and experience to deal with a particular dispute.

    The Chartered Trading Standards Institute acts as the lead competent authority and has held working groups and individual meetings with the other competent authorities to ensure consistency of approach.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-29.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent estimate he has made of how many low and middle income earners save and invest in a save-as-you-earn employee share plan.

    Mr David Gauke

    The tax-advantaged Save As You Earn (SAYE) and Share Incentive Plan (SIP) limits were significantly increased from April 2014. The increases the Government have made are reasonable, given the average monthly SAYE savings and the value of awards currently made to employees under SIP, and they represent the best use of resources. The Government will continue to keep the SAYE and SIP limits under review.

    In addition to increasing the SAYE and SIP limits, the rules of the schemes were substantially reviewed and simplified following the recommendations made by the Office of Tax Simplification in March 2012. Last year, the requirement that these schemes must be approved by HM Revenue and Customs to qualify for favourable tax treatment was replaced by self-certification. Coupled with other changes to simplify some technical aspects of the rules, this will make these schemes more attractive to businesses and employees.

    No data is collected and no estimates are made of the income levels of the participants in SAYE schemes.

    Permitting private equity backed companies to offer all-employee tax advantaged schemes would be likely to involve significant changes to the rules of the schemes, and there would be a number of other factors to consider carefully, including the increased cost and complexity of any extension.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent discussions he has had with the devolved administrations on the distribution and use of funds raised by the proposed Apprenticeship Levy.

    Nick Boles

    Skills policy is a devolved area so the devolved administrations will continue to have control over how to support businesses through training and apprenticeships.

    We are working closely with the Welsh Government and other devolved administrations to ensure they get their fair share of the levy and can work out how best to use it to complement their own apprenticeships and skills policies.

    We will engage with skills ministers in the devolved administrations, including Julie James AC/AM, to do all we can to make the levy work for employers and would-be apprentices across the UK.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Rachel Reeves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rachel Reeves on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent estimate he has made of the cost of reinstating the qualifying age for pension credit to its 1995 timetable.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Pension Credit was designed to provide income related support for people without sufficient provision for their retirement and as such the qualifying age for both men and women has been linked to women’s State Pension age since its introduction.

    Our initial estimates of the cost of retaining the 1995 timetable for the qualifying age for Pension Credit were published in response to a question from Lord Boswell in 2011 Hansard vol. 725, column 1607, 9 March 2011.

    We have not formally updated this costing but we have reconsidered the evidence based on the latest information and our analysis indicates that the cost of breaking the link between the Pension Credit qualifying age and women’s State Pension age is likely to be significantly higher than previously estimated for a number of reasons including:

    – Women under State Pension age would be entitled to larger amounts of Pension Credit than the original analysis assumed.

    – This may incentivise more women to stop working and claim Pension Credit instead.

    In addition to the impacts considered above there would also be increased expenditure on other benefits, most notably Housing Benefit, localised Council Tax Support, the Warm Home Discount and Cold Weather Payments which were not included in the original figures.

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what funds the Government is providing for businesses affected by flooding which did not have insurance.

    Anna Soubry

    I have made it clear to local councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships who are administering the Business Recovery Grant that they should look to provide funding to un-insured businesses so long as it is clear that this is not rewarding deliberate bad business practice. So where a flooded business has made a reasonable effort to secure insurance and not been successful they can be funded. We have provided £11m in total to provide support to businesses, allocated to local areas based on the number of flooded businesses.

  • Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mrs Anne Main on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what modelling his Department used to propose the new transitional benefit arrangements for EU migrants; when benefit payments under those arrangements will be greater than zero per cent; and what proportion of benefits EU migrants will be able to claim in each of the next five years.

    Priti Patel

    These details are a matter for the implementation of the proposal, and further announcements will be made in due course.

  • Lord Watson of Invergowrie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Watson of Invergowrie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Watson of Invergowrie on 2016-04-12.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what modelling they have done to establish the scale of gains and losses that are likely to result from the introduction of the National Funding Formula for schools.

    Lord Nash

    On 7 March, we published our first consultation on a national funding formula for schools and high needs. It outlined the principles of the funding system and the funding factors that we believe should define the formula.

    The detailed design of the national funding formula – and therefore its impact on local authorities and schools – will only be finalised once we have had the opportunity to thoroughly consider all responses to our first consultation, which closed on 17 April. We intend to set out those proposals and the impacts of the proposed formula on local authorities and schools in a second stage consultation later this year. We are thinking carefully about how the transition to new funding levels can be managed and will set out further detail on this in the second consultation.

  • David Burrowes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Burrowes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Burrowes on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many children have been reunited with their families in the UK in (a) the last five years and (b) the last year under (i) the EU Dublin III Regulations, (ii) part 11 of the UK immigration rules, (iii) other parts of the UK immigration rules and (iv) under exceptional circumstances.

    James Brokenshire

    It is not possible to provide a full answer to this question. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the issues he has raised.

  • John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Spellar on 2016-06-27.

    To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will take steps to ensure that the House of Commons Commission’s purchasing policies support British (a) industry and (b) agriculture.

    Tom Brake

    The House of Commons procurement policies operate within the parameters set out by the UK Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

    The House has a Sustainable Purchasing Policy which, amongst other things, requires contracts that are particularly suitable for SMEs to be highlighted as so being, contracts to be divided into lots and processes to be as simple and proportionate as possible to encourage SMEs to participate in our competitions. Further, the policy requires contracts that are suitable for Social Enterprises to be identified at an early stage and that market engaged to ensure their participation.

    More generally, the House supports British industry and agriculture by:

    • Purchasing our goods and services in a way that maximises the ability of SMEs, Social Enterprises and organisations with less bargaining power to win our contracts;
    • Conducting open and competitive tender processes that are accessible to all British suppliers whether small, medium or large;
    • Advertising our contracts on the UK Government procurement website Contracts Finder and the House’s own electronic procurement portal to ensure that there is maximum visibility of our contractual opportunities;
    • Writing specifications of requirements that take into account domestic social, economic and environmental requirements.
  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2016-09-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to recent reports about cuts by the World Food Programme in aid to internally displaced people in parts of Rakhine State and Kachin State, Burma.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    DFID funds significant food assistance for internally displaced people in Burma through a number of partners. We do not fund the World Food Programme (WFP) for such assistance, but we are informed of their programming decisions. DFID officials visit Rakhine and Kachin regularly to listen to affected communities. We ensure that WFP is made aware of any concerns raised about their assistance. DFID will monitor the impact of recent changes.