Blog

  • Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 7 April 2014, Official Report, column 18W, on employee ownership, if he will make an estimate of the total value of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements since 1 September 2013.

    Mr David Gauke

    Employers are not required to provide details of any shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements to HM Revenue & Customs until they submit their annual employment-related securities return for 2013-14. No details or estimates of the total value of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements since 1 September 2013 are currently available.

    Estimates of the Exchequer impact of the capital gains tax exemption and the income tax and national insurance treatment of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements in tax years to 2017-18 can be found at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tiin/emp-shareholder-status.pdf

    “

  • Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 7 April 2014, Official Report, column 18W, on employee ownership, for what reason the details of the total value of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements since 1 September 2013 are not available.

    Mr David Gauke

    Employers are not required to provide details of any shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements to HM Revenue & Customs until they submit their annual employment-related securities return for 2013-14. No details or estimates of the total value of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements since 1 September 2013 are currently available.

    Estimates of the Exchequer impact of the capital gains tax exemption and the income tax and national insurance treatment of shares awarded under employee shareholder agreements in tax years to 2017-18 can be found at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tiin/emp-shareholder-status.pdf

    “

  • Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Aidan Burley on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions officials in his Department have had with their EU counterparts on (a) VAT rates on e-books, digital magazines and newspapers and (b) application of reduced rates; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr David Gauke

    Officials discuss a variety of VAT issues with the European Commission and the officials of other Member States.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury in his foreword to HM Revenue and Customs’ consultation document, Tackling marketed tax avoidance, that there is evidence that in the vast majority of cases of challenges in court to tax avoidance schemes, when the dispute is resolved, tax is due, what that evidence is and what the range and frequency of amounts so due has been, on a graduated scale from £1 owing and upwards.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been successful in challenging tax avoidance and, in relation to avoidance cases that go to litigation, around 80% of cases litigated resulting in the tax being due. This led to around £1.7 billion of tax being protected in 2013. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the range and frequency of amounts of tax due without causing undue cost on the department to provide the information.

    The Government considered different options for the consultation period for the proposals but concluded that the time period made available was reasonable. There were a very large number of responses, which suggests that the timescale did not cause any undue impediment to those who wished to give their views in response to the consultation. ‘Tackling Marketed Tax Avoidance’ followed on from the earlier consultation over the summer of 2013 ‘Raising the Stakes on Tax Avoidance’, which consulted in detail on the initial proposal for the Follower Notice measure.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to HM Revenue and Customs’ consultation document, Tackling marketed tax avoidance, published on 24 January 2014, whether consideration was given to (a) running the consultation for longer than one calendar month and (b) initiating it earlier, to allow more time for the decision-taking process in advance of the March 2014 Budget Statement.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been successful in challenging tax avoidance and, in relation to avoidance cases that go to litigation, around 80% of cases litigated resulting in the tax being due. This led to around £1.7 billion of tax being protected in 2013. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the range and frequency of amounts of tax due without causing undue cost on the department to provide the information.

    The Government considered different options for the consultation period for the proposals but concluded that the time period made available was reasonable. There were a very large number of responses, which suggests that the timescale did not cause any undue impediment to those who wished to give their views in response to the consultation. ‘Tackling Marketed Tax Avoidance’ followed on from the earlier consultation over the summer of 2013 ‘Raising the Stakes on Tax Avoidance’, which consulted in detail on the initial proposal for the Follower Notice measure.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the evidential basis was of his decision to withdraw Government support from Cheshire Employer and Skills Development Limited (CE&SDL); what assessment he made of the performance of CE&SDL in (a) developing (i) work-based learning and (ii) any other skills, (b) encouraging apprenticeships and (c) other respects in the period (A) following its founding and (B) at the time it was required to cease its activities; and what representations his Department received for and against its decision to withdraw support.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Government did not withdraw funding from CE&SDL. In 2007, at the request of CE&SDL, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) transferred the contract for skills provision from CE&SDL to a successor legal entity, Total People. CE&SDL continued to operate when the contract was transferred to Total People but did not directly receive any further funding nor did it acquire funding as a subcontractor. It was dissolved as a company in April 2014. The Skills Funding Agency, as the LSC’s successor, continued to fund Total People, and still does so today.

    Both the earliest and latest performance data available demonstrate a mixed picture. Prior to 2007 CE&SDL’s performance was below the national average. After 2007, and the transfer of contact to Total People, performance was stronger and sometimes higher than national average.

    Neither the Government nor the Skills Funding Agency has received any representations about this organisation.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 7 April 2014, Official Report, column 8W, on employee ownership, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to regulate the qualifications and independence of the independent advisers provided by companies to advise employees on their employee shareholder employment status.

    Jenny Willott

    In order for an individual to become an employee shareholder, the individual must obtain advice from a relevant independent adviser on the terms and effect of the proposed agreement. An employee shareholder employment contract is of no effect if an individual does not get independent advice before the agreement is made. It is in the interest of the individual to understand the employee shareholder contract and its implications before they accept a job.

    Advice must be given by a qualified lawyer, certified trade union member, certified worker at an advice centre or a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives who is employed in a solicitor’s practice. The law does not permit advice from a person employed by the employer to count towards fulfilling the legal advice requirement.

    The law is already clear in this area. Government has drawn on the same legal mechanism detailing the provision of advice which is set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  • Ian Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Ian Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Lucas on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the criteria is by which his Department determined the successful bidders for management of the administration of the personal independence payments contracts.

    Mike Penning

    The Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Assessment Providers were selected following a fair and open competition.

    Tenders were assessed against a detailed set of criteria which covered key aspects of PIP service delivery. A wide range of areas were assessed but particular weighting was given to bidders’ management of the claimant journey, staff recruitment, delivering assessments by Health Professionals, performance management, estates and overall implementation.

    Providers were selected on the basis of the most economic advantageous tender which overall assessed a combination of qualitative, risk and financial factors to determine the preferred supplier for each contract to be awarded.

  • Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many times he has met work programme providers or their representative body to discuss the progress of employment support allowance claimants since June 2011.

    Esther McVey

    The Secretary of State has not met with work programme providers or their respresentative body about the progress of employment support allowance claimants since June 2011.

  • Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what representations he has made to authorities in Brazil and Qatar conveying the lessons learned in the UK about health and safety in constructing sporting stadia.

    Mike Penning

    A senior official from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) participated in the Government to Government Olympic Handover in Rio de Janeiro in November 2012 and established ongoing contact with the Brazilian labour inspectorate. HSE attended meetings held with the Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup Supreme Committee in London during February 2014. In both engagements, attention was also drawn to the material published by HSE on the successes and lessons learned from the ‘Big build’, which formed part of the Olympic Delivery Authority’s legacy commitment. This can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/london-2012-games/index.htm

    “