Blog

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 1.122 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, what estimate his Department has made of the average change in tax credit award as a result of reducing the income rise disregard for tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    As announced in the combined Autumn Statement and Spending Review, the amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase within the year before their tax credit award is adjusted (the income rise disregard), will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The reduction to the income rise disregard will stop one family receiving a higher tax credit award over another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances, which makes the system fairer. The household income of families before it rises will inform how they might be effected by a reduction in the income rise disregard.

    The only people who will be affected are those who will see an income increase of more than £2,500 in-year.

    Due to the way that tax credits are calculated, the amount an award will be adjusted by – because of an increase in income – will depend upon a claimant’s individual circumstances, such as the household’s income before it rises. No one will be a cash loser because their income will have increased. As an example, for an individual with a wage of £12,000, an income increase of £2,501 would lead to an adjustment in their tax credit award of just 41 pence. An increase of less than £2,500 would see no change at all.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20332, if he will place in the Library all case studies his Department undertook for the purpose of establishing the effect of reducing the income rise disregard for tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    As announced in the combined Autumn Statement and Spending Review, the amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase within the year before their tax credit award is adjusted (the income rise disregard), will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The reduction to the income rise disregard will stop one family receiving a higher tax credit award over another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances, which makes the system fairer. The household income of families before it rises will inform how they might be effected by a reduction in the income rise disregard.

    The only people who will be affected are those who will see an income increase of more than £2,500 in-year.

    Due to the way that tax credits are calculated, the amount an award will be adjusted by – because of an increase in income – will depend upon a claimant’s individual circumstances, such as the household’s income before it rises. No one will be a cash loser because their income will have increased. As an example, for an individual with a wage of £12,000, an income increase of £2,501 would lead to an adjustment in their tax credit award of just 41 pence. An increase of less than £2,500 would see no change at all.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the average change in tax credit awards was as a result of an increase in yearly household income above the income rise disregard in each financial year since 2006.

    Damian Hinds

    This answer could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the value of tax credit overpayments has been in each financial year since 2010; and how much of that amount HM Revenue and Customs has recovered in each such year.

    Damian Hinds

    The value of tax credit overpayments and tax credit recoveries in a tax year is published in HM Revenue & Customs, Annual Report and Accounts, available through www.gov.uk.

    The following are hyperlinks to each of the requested years

    2010-11

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/89199/annual-report-accounts-1011.pdf

    2011-12

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/89198/annual-report-accounts-1112.pdf

    2012-13

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210244/9549-TSO-HMRC_RA_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

    2013-14

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330670/HMRC-annual-report-2013-14.pdf

    2014-15

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449343/HMRC_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2014-15__Web_accessible_version_.pdf

    “

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the FCA on its making guidance available to banks which are seeking to comply with money laundering rules in relation to domestic politically-exposed persons in a proportionate way; and if he will make a statement.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government is taking concerns about the Anti-Money Laundering requirements regarding Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) seriously. While addressing corrupt PEPs is an important aspect of global efforts to tackle corruption and money laundering, it is essential that this be done proportionately. Treasury ministers have regular discussions with banks and the FCA, including on ensuring that guidance is clear and appropriate.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patricia Gibson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what his plans are for the £3.5 million funding announced for tackling nuisance calls in paragraph 2.289 of the March 2015 Budget, HC 1093 of Session 2014-15; how much of this funding has been allocated to which local authorities; what information his Department holds on the number of call blockers that this funding has paid for the installation of in domestic properties; and what assessment his Department has made of the effect of that funding in the volumes of nuisance calls received and reports of such calls made.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Government is taking forward a range of measures to tackle the problem of nuisance calls, including strengthening the regulators’ ability to take enforcement action against organisations that break the law and increasing consumer choice by consulting on making it a requirement for direct marketing callers to display their calling line identification. As part of the £3.5m package announced in budget, Government launched a competition for innovative solutions to tackle the scourge of nuisance calls – and contracts have been awarded to successful applicants, to help develop their products to launch on the open market and benefit customers right across the country. In addition, £0.5 million funding is going to the National Trading Standards Scams Team – via East Sussex County Council – to provide call blocking devices to vulnerable people nationwide and report its effects.

  • Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Carswell on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Prime Minister’s Oral Statement of 22 February 2016, Official Report, column 35, on the European Council, whether his Department is undertaking planning in the eventuality of a majority leave vote in the EU referendum.

    Mr David Gauke

    At the February European Council, the Government negotiated a new settlement, giving the United Kingdom a special status in a reformed European Union. The Government’s position, as set out by the Prime Minister to the House on 22 February, is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of in which areas of the Civil Service there is a deficit in capabilities.

    Matthew Hancock

    We have completed a skills review process across different government departments in the last 3 years considering leading and managing change, programme management, digital, and commercial skills and this has given a high level indication of the areas where we need to increase capability. Our approach to learning and development includes specific focus on these areas.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many times the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has met external organisations in the last six months to discuss improving diversity in the Senior Civil Service.

    Matthew Hancock

    Promoting diversity in the Senior Civil Service is a ministerial responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I have had frequent such meetings, and details of ministers’ meetings with external organisations are published routinely and can be found on Gov.uk.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps his Department is taking to improve the representation of employees with a disability in the Senior Civil Service in the Cabinet Office.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Cabinet Office promotes a number of cross Government talent schemes to Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and disabled staff, to accelerate their promotion to Senior Civil Service roles. This includes Civil Service wide talent schemes such the Future Leaders Scheme (aimed at G6&7 staff) and the Senior Leaders Scheme (aimed at SCS Pay Band 1). Additionally, it promotes development schemes aimed specifically at BAME and disabled staff including the Accelerate talent programme (for SCS) and the Positive Action Pathway (for staff below SCS).