Blog

  • James Heappey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    James Heappey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by James Heappey on 2015-12-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether his Department acts as the enforcement authority for the criminal offences defined in Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and in consequent trading schemes regulations and exemptions; and if he will make statement.

    Nick Boles

    Breaches of the Trading Schemes legislation (i.e. the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the regulations made under it) would be referred to the lawyers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ Criminal Enforcement to determine whether or not a criminal investigation should be undertaken. The matter may also be referred to the Insolvency Service, to investigate and ascertain whether the offending company should be wound up in the public interest. The 1973 Act does not confer an express enforcement duty on any particular body, however this Department would look to bring a case in appropriate circumstances. Otherwise, enforcement could fall to Trading Standards or possibly the Competition Markets Authority should widespread malpractice be suspected.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-12-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when his Department plans to publish the results of its consultation on UK Export Finance’s anti-bribery and corruption policy.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government’s Response to the consultation relating to UK Export Finance’s anti-bribery and corruption policy is expected to be published early in the New Year.

  • Baroness Worthington – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Worthington – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Worthington on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much stamp duty reserve tax has been repaid following the 2012 decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) in the case of HSBC Holdings PLC and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v HMRC (TC/2009/165484).

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The First Tier Tribunal in the case of HSBC Holdings PLC and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v HMRC decided in March 2012 that the taxing of Stamp Duty Reserve Tax at 1.5% on a transfer of shares which is integral to a share capital raising exercise to a depositary receipt issuer or clearance service, infringed the Capital Duty Directive. Following that decision, HMRC has repaid a total of £168 million Stamp Duty Reserve Tax to various claimants.

  • Baroness Worthington – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Worthington – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Worthington on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the amount of stamp duty reserve tax that will be repaid following the 2012 decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) in the case of HSBC Holdings PLC and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v HMRC (TC/2009/165484).

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is not in a position to provide an assessment of Stamp Duty Reserve Tax that may be repaid following the 2012 First Tier Tribunal decision in the case of HSBC Holdings PLC and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v HMRC. This is due to ongoing litigation of cases arising from that decision.

  • Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their estimates for the extra cost of supply teachers of HMRC’s proposals on not allowing staff engaged through agencies to claim tax relief on their travel and subsistence expenses.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    No estimates have been made for the extra cost of supply teachers following restrictions to tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses for those working through employment intermediaries. The planned changes will put supply teachers employed through an intermediary on the same terms as other supply teachers, either contracted directly, or through an agency contract.

  • Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what cross-Government estimates they have made in 2016–17 departmental budgets for the extra cost of agency and contract staff of HMRC’s proposals on not allowing staff employed through agencies or contractors to claim tax relief on their travel and subsistence expenses.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    No cross-government estimates have been made for the extra cost of agency and contract staff in 2016-17 departmental budgets, following the restriction of tax relief on travel and subsistence for workers engaged through an employment intermediary.

    The changes are aimed at ensuring the tax system provides no individuals or business with an unfair advantage by preventing temporary workers, who are employed through employment intermediaries, and their employers, from benefiting for relief for home-to-work travel and subsistence expenses. This relief is not generally available to other workers who are employed directly or through temporary work contracts.

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made for the electrification of the South TransPennine route between Sheffield and Manchester.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Network Rail is currently updating its national electrification strategy taking into account Sir Peter Hendy’s Report on Network Rail’s 2014-2019 rail enhancements portfolio and the recommendations of the North of England Electrification Task Force. The Task Force placed the South TransPennine route in the second tier of lines it recommended for future electrification. The updated strategy will be subject to public consultation during 2016 and inform the Government’s Rail Investment Strategy for 2019-2024.

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timescale for the delivery of the HS3 rail scheme, and what budget is allocated to it.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Since March, the government and Transport for the North have undertaken significant work to develop options for transformational improvements to the North’s rail network; building on committed upgrades in the North of England and integrating with HS2.

    By March 2016 we will conduct an initial prioritisation of options to focus further work and inform the development of an appropriate timeline for implementation.

    The government has also established a new £300 million Transport Development Fund, which following advice from the National Infrastructure Commission, could support the development of proposals such as Northern Powerhouse Rail (HS3).

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the status of the Northern Powerhouse rail network, what schemes are incorporated into its remit, what budget it has allocated to it and by whom, what the governance structure is, and what powers it has.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The government and Transport for the North (TfN) published the Northern Transport Strategy in March 2015, setting out the vision for the Northern Powerhouse Rail network: radically improved journey times and frequencies between the major cities of the North, building on the substantial improvements to rail in the North to which the government is already committed.

    In November, the government and Transport for the North published the Northern Transport Strategy: Autumn Report, providing a progress update on the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) network.

    The government has also committed a total of £50 million of funding over this parliament to Transport for the North, to help it develop plans to transform the North’s rail connections and build a single regional economy.

    Work on Northern Powerhouse Rail is governed jointly by the Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport for the North as set out in Principles for Governing the Relationship Between TfN and DfT.

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 10 December (HL4243), whether the specific power of the Mayor to veto a vote by not voting for a motion, as set out in paragraph 4 of the Sheffield City Region Devolution Agreement, remains negotiable.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    All deals are agreed in principle, and we are therefore open to extending or amending existing devolution deals. However, it is vital that any alternative arrangement offered by Sheffield City Region would ensure that the Mayor will retain the same or stronger powers as the currently agreed arrangements.