UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-02-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his policy is on the proposal from the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU, in order to have one set of rules for calculating the taxable profits of companies operating in more than one member state; and if he will press for the introduction of such a CCCTB with other EU member states in the Council.

    Mr David Gauke

    The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) has a keen interest in tax, and hence put forward certain proposals. However, the Commission has the sole power of initiative in relation to legislative measures. Tax files are to be agreed by unanimity at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN). The European Parliament’s role in this process in not formal, and purely consultative.

    The term tax haven is often used as shorthand for low or zero tax jurisdictions. However, low tax rates are not by themselves harmful and the UK supports fair tax competition. The UK is working with other Member States in the EU Code of Conduct Group to identify harmful tax regimes and will continue to take strong action against aggressive avoidance and evasion.

    The UK and other Member States have not yet seen any proposals from the European Commission or the European Parliament on public country-by-country reporting (CbCR). The Commission is due to publish an Impact Assessment on public CbCR shortly, and we are interested in the results of their analysis. The UK will carefully consider any proposals put forward by the Commission.

    The UK played a leading role in encouraging other countries and jurisdictions to sign up to international tax transparency agreements during its G8 presidency in 2013. Thanks in large part to the UK’s continuing leadership on this agenda, over 90 countries have now committed to exchange information on offshore accounts, beginning in 2017 or 2018. The UK also initiated the international work on CbCR and was the first country to formally commit to implementing the OECD model for CbCR, with legislation in the Finance Act 2015. We support the proposal to amend the Directive on Administrative Co-operation to require all EU Member States to adopt and exchange the OECD CbCR template.

    The European Commission intends to publish a revised proposal for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) later this year. The Government will wait to see the detail of the Commission’s proposal, including a robust impact assessment, before finalising its position. However, we have stated that the UK will not sign up to anything that undermines our tax sovereignty.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-03-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 7 March 2016 to Question 29272, how many of the 2635 EEA nationals upon whom administrative travel papers were served in 2014 have left the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    After an EEA national has been served with administrative removal papers, they have 30 days to leave the country. They do not have to inform us of their departure. This period is set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

    Following this 30-day period, if the EEA national has not voluntarily left the UK Immigration Enforcement officers can and do forcibly remove these individuals. Out of the 2,635 EEA nationals who were served administrative removal papers in 2014 1,019 were forcibly removed.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lucy Frazer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Frazer on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he plans to undertake the review of shared ownership announced in the report, Proposals to streamline the resale of shared ownership properties, Consultation: summary of responses, published in March 2015.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Government carried out an internal review of Shared Ownership policy last year. Following this, the Autumn Statement confirmed £4.1 billion for 135,000 new Help to Buy: Shared Ownership starts by 2021. It also raised the income cap on Shared Ownership in England from £60,000 to £80,000, removed restrictions on who can buy Shared Ownership homes, enabled existing shared owners to climb the Shared Ownership ladder and removed restrictions on how many bedrooms Shared Ownership buyers can purchase.

    The prospectus for the Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme 2016 to 2021 was launched on 13 April 2016 and invites applications for up to £4.7 billion of funding to increase the supply of new shared ownership and affordable homes.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect of active service on the mental health of (a) drone operators and (b) conventional pilots.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Government is committed to improving the mental health of our Armed Forces and has long recognised that Service life can cause stress. Support to all personnel (including pilots of Remotely Piloted Air Systems) is continually improving. We provide pre- and post-operational stress management training; a wide range of psychiatric and psychological treatments; and initiatives such as Decompression, Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), and post operational stress management. Measures are in place to increase awareness at all levels of the risk of mental health disorders and indicators to help identify these.

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will bring forward proposals to change surrogacy law to give single parents with children born through surrogacy the same rights as couples.

    Jane Ellison

    The Government has accepted the judgment by Sir James Munby from the High Court. We will be looking to update the legislation on Parental Orders, and are now considering how best to do this.

  • Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hugo Swire on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he is taking to reduce the number of indefinitely vacant properties.

    Gavin Barwell

    Our strong record on the economy has created a strong buoyant housing market where owners of empty properties are bringing these homes back into use without government intervention. As a result the number of empty properties are at their lowest since records began.

    Local authorities have powers and incentives to tackle empty homes. Through the New Homes Bonus they earn the same financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use as building a new one. Councils may also charge up to 150% council tax for homes empty over two years. We have extended permitted development rights to make it easier to convert property from business to residential to give life to thousands of empty buildings.

  • Jeff Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jeff Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average waiting time was for the completion of pre-employment checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service in each of the last three years in (a) the UK and (b) Manchester Withington constituency.

    Sarah Newton

    In the last 12 months (1 October 2015 – 30 September 2016), the proportion of disclosure applications which took longer than 60 days was as follows: (a) the UK – 5.4%, (b) Manchester – 3.9%, (c) Manchester Withington – 2.8%. The Disclosure and Barring Service is reliant on police forces completing their checks in a timely manner and is working closely with those forces whose performance does not meet turnaround time targets. The average time taken in days to process disclosures checks in the last three years is as follows:

    Time Period

    Average waiting time – United Kingdom

    Average waiting time – Manchester Withington

    Oct-13 to Sep-14

    13.4

    12.0

    Oct-14 to Sep-15

    14.4

    12.1

    Oct-15 to Sep-16

    15.5

    12.6

    The average processing time for applications to the DBS for each police force area in England from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016 is set out in the table below. This shows the average number of days each application took from the point at which the application form was received to the date the certificate was issued, broken down by the applicant’s geographical police force area. This information reflects all applications sent to the DBS, of which a proportion are sent to police forces for consideration for disclosure.

    Police Force Area in which applicant lives

    Average time taken in calendar days

    Metropolitan

    28.1

    Cumbria

    11.5

    Lancashire

    11.6

    Merseyside

    12.1

    Greater Manchester

    14.1

    Cheshire

    11.1

    Northumbria

    13.9

    Durham

    11.9

    North Yorkshire

    14.1

    West Yorkshire

    12.7

    South Yorkshire

    19.8

    Humberside

    12.2

    Cleveland

    13.5

    West Midlands

    10.3

    Staffordshire

    9.6

    West Mercia

    11.9

    Warwickshire

    9.4

    Derbyshire

    14.1

    Nottinghamshire

    11.7

    Lincolnshire

    10.5

    Leicestershire

    9.4

    Northamptonshire

    17.9

    Cambridgeshire

    10.1

    Norfolk

    9.1

    Suffolk

    9.9

    Bedfordshire

    11.6

    Hertfordshire

    14.8

    Essex

    14.2

    Thames Valley

    16.1

    Hampshire

    14.2

    Surrey

    14.1

    Kent

    15.8

    Sussex

    11.9

    City of London

    11.9

    Devon & Cornwall

    11.3

    Avon And Somerset

    10.7

    Gloucester

    10.7

    Wiltshire

    10.2

    Dorset

    26.8

    For a breakdown of how long police forces take to process applications they receive; this information is regularly published on the DBS website and can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dbs-performance

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-10.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, in cases where a person has registered a donation to a charity for gift aid but ended the year below the income threshold for income tax, whether it is the policy of HM Revenue and Customs to reclaim the gift aid from the (a) donor or (b) charity; and if he will make a statement.

    Damian Hinds

    Individual donors are responsible for ensuring that they have paid sufficient tax to cover any Gift Aid reclaimed on their donations.

    In practice, where HMRC identifies tax to cover issues as a result of its compliance activity with a charity, it may invite the charity to make good any shortfall on behalf of their donors. The charity is not legally obliged to repay any over-claimed Gift Aid and the responsibility always remains that of the donor.

    Details of how much Gift Aid is reclaimed separately from donors and charities is not available.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Margaret Ferrier – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ferrier on 2015-12-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the page on the National Crime Agency website entitled, Cyber crime: Preventing young people from getting involved, what discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on interest in coding and possession of independent learning material on computing being considered possible indicators of risk of involvement in cyber crime.

    Nick Gibb

    The Secretary of State holds discussions on a range of topics with Cabinet Ministers.

    The National Crime Agency (NCA) has recently published guidance on preventing young people from becoming involved in cyber-crime: www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/crime-threats/cyber-crime/cyber-crime-preventing-young-people-from-getting-involved

    “

  • Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-01-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 30 November 2015 (HL3712), whether, in the interests of transparency, they will arrange for police forces to collate and publicise the occasions on which persons arrested but not charged have had their names disclosed.

    Lord Bates

    The Home Office currently has no plans to arrange for police forces to collate and publish data in relation to the occasions on which persons arrested but not charged have had their names disclosed.

    Police are guided in making such decisions by the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Guidance on ‘Relationships with the media’.

    There are clearly great risks in naming suspects and the College of Policing guidance makes clear that decisions should only be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless they have clearly identified circumstances to justify disclosure.