The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gloria De Piero on 2016-10-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people who are certified as self-employed in Ashfield constituency are in receipt of in-work benefits.
Damian Hinds
The Department for Work and Pensions does not hold sufficient data on self-employed recipients of in-work benefits to answer this question.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 2015-11-09.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether evidence sessions will be held in the course of Lord Strathclyde’s review of the powers of the House of Lords, and whether those sessions will be public.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston):
Lord Strathclyde is being supported in his review by a panel of external experts and a small secretariat of civil servants in the Cabinet Office. The secretariat does not include political advisers. The expert panel comprises Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel; Jacqy Sharpe, a former Clerk in the House of Commons and Clerk to the Joint Committee on Conventions; and Sir Michael Pownall, former Clerk of the Parliaments.
Several reviews have examined the powers of the House of Lords, including the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords (2000) and the Joint Committee on Conventions referenced above (2006).
The review led by Lord Strathclyde is due to consider how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament in the light of the operation of certain conventions. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters; and secondary legislation.
Ministers regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.
Lord Strathclyde will determine the way in which the review is undertaken and the content of his recommendations, including any definitions required. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of the exercise at this stage, but neither Lord Strathclyde nor his panel of experts will be paid a fee. Lord Strathclyde is expected to seek views from a wide range of Parliamentarians, parties and groups in undertaking his review, and has issued a letter to all Parliamentarians inviting their input. He is also seeking views from the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House. Lord Strathclyde will report to the Prime Minister, and the Government will decide how to proceed upon receipt of his recommendations.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rennard on 2015-12-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reduce the costs of government special advisers.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I refer the Noble Lord to the Written Statement made on 17 December 2015, HLWS417, which I have attached for each of reference.
The attached list of Special Advisers sets out the names of the Special Advisers in post as of December 2015, each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary (where this is higher than the Senior Civil Service entry-level salary), together with details of the total pay bill for 2014-15 and the estimate for 2015-16. The cost has fallen from last year, and the cost represents just 0.08 per cent of the Civil Service pay bill.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-13.
To ask the Leader of the House whether she will initiate discussions with the usual channels as to the desirability of establishing a general principle whereby items of business with a speakers list of more than 35 members should be tabled over two days, and not on one.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Where the Speakers List for a debate is exceptionally long, it is open to the Usual Channels to consider special arrangements – including an early sitting of the House (as was arranged for the Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill) or adjourning the debate and resuming it on a subsequent day. However, in considering whether to make such arrangements, account must also be taken of members wishing to speak who may not be able to be present on a subsequent day, or for an earlier sitting, and would consequently not be able to participate if such an arrangement were made at short notice. For this reason, case-by-case consideration of the best way forward may serve the House better than a general principle, and so I do not propose to initiate discussions along the lines suggested at this time.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Hayes on 2016-02-08.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what assessment she has made of the effects of changes in feed-in tariffs on small businesses in the solar industry.
Andrea Leadsom
The Government published an impact assessment alongside the Government Response to the FIT Review consultation on 17 December, available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486084/IA_-_FITs_consultation_response_with_Annexes_-_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf.
This assessed impacts of the changes across the solar industry as a whole.
.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-02-29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospital admissions due to liver disease there were in (a) England and (b) each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available.
Jane Ellison
The information requested is in the attached table.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Derek Thomas on 2016-03-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will issue guidance to NHS trusts on ensuring future reductions in frontline staff numbers are not made for the purpose of reducing trusts’ deficits.
Ben Gummer
The National Health Service has taken a number of steps to reduce trusts’ deficits. We have introduced tough new financial controls to cut down on waste in the NHS – including clamping down on rip-off staffing agencies and expensive management consultants, and introducing central procurement rules.
We are also introducing a £2.1 billion Sustainability and Transformation Fund in 2016/17 to support providers to move to a financially sustainable footing. This will give the NHS the space to transform services so they are world class for decades to come.
The purpose of these actions is to put NHS finances on a sustainable footing to ensure high quality care, now and in the future.
Trusts should focus on the numbers and skillmix needed to deliver quality care, patient safety and efficiency, taking into account local factors such as acuity and casemix.
Two communications to NHS trusts (a letter on safe staffing and efficiency dated 13 October 2015 from NHS Improvement, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), NHS England, Jane Cummings, Chief Nursing Officer and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and a letter dated 15 January 2016 from Chief Executive-designate of NHS Improvement, Jim Mackey, and the CQC’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards) asked trusts to consider quality and finances on an equal footing in their planning decisions; stated that it is not the case that NHS trusts could only achieve their financial targets at the expense of quality, or that improving quality is more important than staying in financial surplus; and emphasised that responsibility for staffing rests (as it has always done) with trust boards.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraphs H.2 to H.6 of HM Revenue and Customs document, Measuring tax gaps 2015 edition: methodological annex, published in October 2015, what the initial estimate was of the value of large business tax under consideration (a) in total and (b) for each tax to which large businesses are subject in each year since 2009-10; how many times those estimates were revised (i) up and (ii) down in each such year and for each such tax; and what the total revised value of large business tax under consideration was after HM Revenue and Custom’s negotiations with those businesses.
Greg Hands
Tax under consideration is HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) estimate of the maximum potential additional tax liability in each case, before they have carried out a full investigation of the specific facts or analysis of relevant law. It is not actual tax either owed or unpaid; it is a tool to guide HMRC enquiries to focus on the most significant risks that exist at any particular time with the largest businesses. In many cases, when HMRC have looked at the full facts it becomes clear that there is some lesser additional liability or even no additional liability at all. Tax under consideration is a snapshot of work in progress and will naturally vary from time to time as outstanding issues are settled and new risks are identified. Tax under consideration covers all taxes, including Corporation Tax, VAT, PAYE and National lnsurance contributions. As it is an internal estimate used within HMRC, it is not subject to challenge by large businesses.
Until 31 March 2014, HMRC’s Large Business Service dealt with the tax affairs of around 800 of the largest businesses in the UK. From 1 April 2014 HMRC’s Large Business directorate deals with the tax affairs of around 2,000 large businesses.
Snapshots of tax under consideration in each year were:
HMRC’s Large Business directorate (largest 2,000 businesses):
31 March 2015 – £19 billion
HMRC’s Large Business Service (largest 800 businesses):
31 March 2014 – £15.7 billion
31 July 2013 – £18.8 billion
31 July 2012 – £21.3 billion
31 March 2011 – £25.5 billion
31 March 2010 – £33.4 billion
The estimate of total tax under consideration shown in Measuring Tax Gaps Table 7.1, page 62, differs from the figures above for two reasons:
it shows tax under consideration for the individual financial years relating to liability
it includes corporation tax only.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-06-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the cost was of operating the British Embassy in Ankara and the Consulate-General in Istanbul in each of the last five years.
Mr David Lidington
During the financial year 2015/16 the administrative cost of operating HMG’s network in Turkey was £8,598,421. For the financial year 2014/15 it was £11,085,874. For 2013/14 it was £9,402,577. For 2012/13 it was £8,462,061 and for 2011/12 it was £7,585,285.56. This includes the costs of all our missions in Turkey: the British Embassy in Ankara, the British Consulate General in Istanbul, the British Consulate in Izmir, the British Vice Consulate in Antalya, and the British Honorary Consulates in Bodrum, Fetiye and Marmaris. It does not include the cost of UK-based staff working in Turkey, which could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-09-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what estimate he has made of his Department’s budget in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.
Joseph Johnson
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility on 18 July 2016, UIN 43020.
“