Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

178065

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Employment Tribunals Service
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average cost was of each case heard by an employment tribunal in each of the last three years.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield, Heeley
tabling member printed	Meg Munn
uin	223678
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/03/2015 answer text <p>Employment tribunal cases can vary in nature and complexity and some can last over more than one year, particularly where collective disputes are involved. Claims in employment tribunals can be classified into either single or multiple claims. Multiple claims are where two or more people bring proceedings arising out of the same facts, usually against a common employer. Where claims are grouped as multiples, they are processed administratively and managed judicially together. We call these groups of claims ‘multiple claims cases’. One multiple claim case would therefore involve two or more claims. Claims can be disposed of in a variety of ways, including being rejected either because they are out of time, or have no reasonable chance of success. A minority of cases are disposed of at a full hearing.</p><p>There are therefore many ways the term an employment tribunal case can be interpreted. The costs directly attributable to each claim / case are not collected, as current systems do not allow us to link staff, judicial and other costs to claims / cases. As a result, it is not possible to provide average costs per case over the last three years on a comparable basis.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 17/03/2015 16:44:05 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1448 label Biography information for Meg Munn

178084

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Empty Property
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what written representations his Department received on the introduction of a vacant building credit in 2014.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Dame Tessa Jowell
uin	223583
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2015 answer text <p>The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.</p><p>I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.</p><p>We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.</p><p>Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.</p><p>I would note:</p><p> </p><p>· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.</p><p> </p><p>· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p>· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.</p><p> </p><p>· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.</p><p>Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.</p><p>It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.</p><p>Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis grouped question UIN 223172 223173 223584 223585 question first answered 12/02/2015 17:38:32 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 44043 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	159 label Biography information for Baroness Jowell

178085

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Housing: Construction
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library the minutes or meetings he and Ministers in his Department held with private developers in 2014 and the names of the people attending those meetings.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Dame Tessa Jowell
uin	223581
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2015 answer text <p>Details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations are published on-line as part of our transparency agenda. They are available at:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-communities-and-local-government&amp;publication_type=transparency-data" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-communities-and-local-government&amp;publication_type=transparency-data</a><br><br><br>In line with established practice, names of all attendees and meeting minutes are not normally published.</p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 11/02/2015 16:37:12 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 44041 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	159 label Biography information for Baroness Jowell

178087

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Empty Property
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 November 2014, HCWS50, whether any exemptions were considered in relation to the vacant building credit.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Dame Tessa Jowell
uin	223584
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2015 answer text <p>The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.</p><p>I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.</p><p>We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.</p><p>Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.</p><p>I would note:</p><p> </p><p>· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.</p><p> </p><p>· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p>· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.</p><p> </p><p>· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.</p><p>Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.</p><p>It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.</p><p>Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis grouped question UIN 223172 223173 223583 223585 question first answered 12/02/2015 17:38:32 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 44044 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	159 label Biography information for Baroness Jowell

178088

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Empty Property
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 November 2014, HCWS50, whether an impact assessment was carried out on the proposal to introduce a vacant building credit and the effect of that proposal on the provision of new affordable housing.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Dame Tessa Jowell
uin	223585
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2015 answer text <p>The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a public consultation in March 2014 to invite views and local evidence on proposed changes to national policy on the issue of Section 106 tariffs being imposed on empty buildings being brought back into use. All evidence submitted was carefully considered. The new policy was outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 55WS. The purpose of the credit is to provide an incentive that will help regenerate empty and redundant buildings.</p><p>I can confirm that we have also undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment, which I will arrange to be placed in the Library. We do not consider our reforms will have a negative impact on discrimination, fostering good relations or advancing equality of opportunity.</p><p>We do not believe that our reforms will have any significant adverse effect on our affordable housing programme. We have so far delivered 217,000 new affordable homes since 2010, and are bringing in £19.5 billion of public and private in affordable housing over the current Spending Review period. In the next Parliament, we are on track to deliver a further 275,000 new affordable homes, backed up by £38 billion of public and private investment.</p><p>Planning guidance is kept under review and is updated as required, and we are open to representations on any practical areas where further assistance is needed to help facilitate the implementation of new policy.</p><p>I would note:</p><p> </p><p>· The policy changes are aimed at providing a clear incentive for brownfield regeneration, whilst supporting the Government’s policies of protecting the Green Belt and increasing housing supply.</p><p> </p><p>· The relief is intended to reflect the often higher costs of conversion and refurbishment and bringing an existing building back into use. Our reforms will help increase development and regeneration, providing more homes at no cost to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p>· Such re-use of existing buildings has a limited impact on local infrastructure; however, any increase in floor space would still be liable for Section 106 tariffs.</p><p> </p><p>· The Government had already amended regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy which extend an existing credit for vacant buildings being brought back into use from the levy. This applies either where buildings are brought back into the same use, or for a change of use provided they have not been “abandoned” and have been in use for at least six months in the last three years. In either case the levy is only charged on any increase in floor space. Our Section 106 reforms mirror those Community Infrastructure Levy reforms: this is a consistent, joined-up approach.</p><p>Our new policy was endorsed in the consultation by the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Home Builders Federation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Property Federation. They said that the proposed policy would encourage the refurbishment and regeneration of brownfield sites and bring vacant buildings back into use, especially given the higher costs of building on previously developed land.</p><p>It is crazy to be putting stealth taxes on empty and redundant buildings being brought back into productive use, as it hinders regeneration and discourages new housing being created from conversions. I would note to the rt. hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that one of the reasons why London house prices are so high is all the levies and charges placed on them. If the state puts heavy taxes on new housing, prices will rise and supply will fall; conversely, our reforms will help lower housing costs and increase housing supply.</p><p>Reflecting commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, getting empty and redundant buildings back into use is a key priority for this Government. Under the Coalition Government, the number of empty homes in England has so far fallen to a 10 year low. Our reforms will further support the conversion of empty buildings, and so deliver an economic, social and environmental benefit to society.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis grouped question UIN 223172 223173 223583 223584 question first answered 12/02/2015 17:38:32 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 44045 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	159 label Biography information for Baroness Jowell

178089

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Council Tax Reduction Schemes
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he plans to take to ensure that billing authorities pass on in full to local councils council tax support funding which his Department earmarked for those councils.
tabling member constituency	Mid Dorset and North Poole
tabling member printed	Annette Brooke
uin	223570
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/02/2015 answer text <p>My Department has provided £3.3 billion to local authorities in respect of local council tax support schemes in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the same amount will be provided in 2015-16.</p><p> </p><p>For the first year of local council tax support only, the Government set out an indicative amount of £40,450,000 attributable to parish and town councils in England. Latest statistics show that 95 per cent of this indicative amount was passed down in 2013-14.</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx</a></p><p> </p><p>As schemes are designed and implemented by billing authorities, it is not for Government to calculate on an ongoing basis the appropriate level of funding parishes required. However I have previously written to the small number of authorities which in 2014-15 had no intention to pass on any of the funding to express concern. I also wrote to all billing authorities on 19 February 2015 reminding them of the Government’s clear expectation that they should pass down funding to eligible parishes in 2015-16 and have placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.</p><p> </p><p>Every sector of local government should be doing their bit to keep council tax down for hard-working people. Although the referendum principle does not apply to town and parish councils in 2015-16, we continue to keep this option under active consideration. The Government has given new rights for taxpayers to approve or veto excessive council tax rises set by principal local authorities. If necessary, we are prepared to extend this to town and parish councils in the future if there is evidence of unreasonable hikes being imposed on taxpayers without their consent.</p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins grouped question UIN 223571 question first answered 23/02/2015 17:45:59 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins previous answer version 44039 answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
tabling member	1431 label Biography information for Annette Brooke

178090

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Council Tax Reduction Schemes
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he plans to take to ensure that parish councils will be fully compensated for effects arising from the implementation of localised council tax support schemes.
tabling member constituency	Mid Dorset and North Poole
tabling member printed	Annette Brooke
uin	223571
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/02/2015 answer text <p>My Department has provided £3.3 billion to local authorities in respect of local council tax support schemes in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the same amount will be provided in 2015-16.</p><p> </p><p>For the first year of local council tax support only, the Government set out an indicative amount of £40,450,000 attributable to parish and town councils in England. Latest statistics show that 95 per cent of this indicative amount was passed down in 2013-14.</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx</a></p><p> </p><p>As schemes are designed and implemented by billing authorities, it is not for Government to calculate on an ongoing basis the appropriate level of funding parishes required. However I have previously written to the small number of authorities which in 2014-15 had no intention to pass on any of the funding to express concern. I also wrote to all billing authorities on 19 February 2015 reminding them of the Government’s clear expectation that they should pass down funding to eligible parishes in 2015-16 and have placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.</p><p> </p><p>Every sector of local government should be doing their bit to keep council tax down for hard-working people. Although the referendum principle does not apply to town and parish councils in 2015-16, we continue to keep this option under active consideration. The Government has given new rights for taxpayers to approve or veto excessive council tax rises set by principal local authorities. If necessary, we are prepared to extend this to town and parish councils in the future if there is evidence of unreasonable hikes being imposed on taxpayers without their consent.</p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins grouped question UIN 223570 question first answered 23/02/2015 17:45:59 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins previous answer version 44040 answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
tabling member	1431 label Biography information for Annette Brooke

178091

registered interest
date	05/02/2015
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Private Rented Housing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will estimate the number of properties in the private rented sector which (a) reach and (b) do not reach the Decent Homes standard.
tabling member constituency	Bishop Auckland
tabling member printed	Helen Goodman
uin	223554
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/02/2015 answer text <p>The table below shows the number and proportion of dwellings in the private rented sector which reach the Decent Homes standard over the last five years.</p><p> </p><p>The private rented sector has expanded in size in this period (with almost one million more homes), yet both the absolute and relative number of non-Decent Homes have fallen.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td colspan="2"><p><em>Reaching standard</em></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><em>Not reaching standard</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>1,847,000</p></td><td><p>56%</p></td><td><p>1,449,000</p></td><td><p>44%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>2,123,000</p></td><td><p>59%</p></td><td><p>1,465,000</p></td><td><p>41%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>2,325,000</p></td><td><p>63%</p></td><td><p>1,381,000</p></td><td><p>37%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>2,610,000</p></td><td><p>65%</p></td><td><p>1,407,000</p></td><td><p>35%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>2,754,000</p></td><td><p>67%</p></td><td><p>1,365,000</p></td><td><p>33%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>This Government has taken a series of actions to help improve standards in the private rented sector.</p><p> </p><p>To encourage improved conditions, we have increased consumer awareness and supported longer tenancies with a ‘How to Rent’ guide, a model tenancy agreement, and an industry-led Code of Practice for letting and managing agents. We have introduced regulations to require the remaining 3,000 letting and property management agents to join one of three approved redress schemes from 1 October; made over £4 million available to 23 local authorities to help them tackle localised problems with the small minority in rogue landlords in their area – building on £2.6 million given to 9 local authorities to support enforcement against ‘Beds in Sheds’; and supported measures to tackle retaliatory evictions in private rented sector.</p><p> </p><p>However, we also need to avoid disproportionate red tape which would reduce supply, cut investment and ultimately force up rents. As an illustration, my written answer of 9 February 2015 to Question 222996, noted how rent controls would actually worsen property conditions for tenants by discouraging investment in new and existing rented accommodation.</p><p> </p><p>I would also add that, in the social sector, the number of non-Decent local authority dwellings across England has fallen from 291,600 in 1 April 2010 to 145,900 in April 2014, with a forecast of a further fall to 113,000 by April 2015.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 23/02/2015 17:44:36 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 44033 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	1484 label Biography information for Helen Goodman

175882

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Welfare Tax Credits
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total sum of administrative penalties applied to tax credit claimants following overpayments in each of the past four years.
tabling member printed	Baroness King of Bow
uin	HL4462
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/03/2015 answer text <p>The following table outlines the sum of penalties applied to tax credits claimants in each of the past four years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Penalties applied in period</p></td><td><p>Sum of civil penalties applied</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>£28,181,587.50</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>£13,128,383.00</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>£4,599,135.86</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>£1,196,988.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>An integral part of the tax credits error and fraud strategy was to ensure that claimants who negligently or deliberately sought to mislead HMRC about their circumstances would be dealt with appropriately. This led to a review of the penalty regime, which resulted in a large scale levying of penalties. This was consistent with the principles contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in particular with the approach to issue tougher penalties for the most serious offences.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Deighton question first answered 09/03/2015 17:56:12 answering member 4262 label Biography information for Lord Deighton
tabling member	143 label Biography information for Baroness King of Bow

175892

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Tobacco: Smuggling
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of links between terrorist organisations and the illicit tobacco market in the United Kingdom.
tabling member printed	Lord Palmer
uin	HL4472
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/02/2015 answer text <p>HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) currently has no direct evidence that profits from tobacco fraud fund any specific terrorist groups.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The joint HMRC/Border Force strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling has been successful in driving a consistent and sustained reduction in the illicit market in the UK, reducing the market share for illicit cigarettes by more than half and hand-rolling tobacco by one-third since 2000.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The latest tobacco anti-fraud strategy ‘Tackling Tobacco Smuggling – building on our successes’ was launched in April 2011. Its objective is to achieve further sustainable downward pressure on the illicit market in cigarettes through to 2015. A copy was placed in the House of Commons library at that time.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In 2013/14, HMRC referred 328 cases for prosecution and seized 1,437 million cigarettes and 330 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Deighton question first answered 16/02/2015 16:42:52 answering member 4262 label Biography information for Lord Deighton
tabling member	3192 label Biography information for Lord Palmer