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
tabling member	label

Search

657022

registered interest
date	12/12/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Government Departments: Off-payroll Working
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016, HCWS252, on off-payroll review 2014-15, how much was paid from the public purse to the 504 contractors who did not provide sufficient reassurance of their tax affairs; and how much has since been recovered by the Government.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	57164
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/12/2016 answer text <p>The annex attached to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016 detailing the results of the off-payroll review provides a breakdown of which departments sought assurances on the tax affairs of their contractors earning more than £220 per day for more than six months, including how many such contractors had assurances sought about them and how many did not provide adequate assurance. The total number of off-payroll engagements across departments and their total value is outside the remit of the off-payroll review, and it not held by HM Treasury.</p><p> </p><p>A failure to provide assurance does not conclusively denote anything about the tax arrangements of the individuals concerned. For example, in some of the 504 instances the engagements came to a natural conclusion before assurance was received. Nevertheless, referrals to HMRC for further investigation occurred in all relevant cases across government. HMRC will investigate rule bending and breaking, including fraud investigation by both specialist civil and criminal teams where appropriate. HMRC are unable to provide details of individual cases due to taxpayer confidentiality so it is not possible to calculate the amount of tax recovered as a result of the referrals.</p><p> </p><p>The review found that not all relevant contracts contained the clause required to allow departments to seek assurance. However, assurance was requested and received from the majority of contractors regardless. As I set out in my Statement of 14 November 2016, I expect departments to have these clauses in place and departments can expect to be fined if breaches of this nature are found in the next review. The table below details contracts that, as part of this review, cannot be confirmed as containing the required clause:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Department</p></td><td><p>Number of new engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014</p></td><td><p>Number that cannot be confirmed as including contractual clauses giving the department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and NICs</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BIS ALBs</p></td><td><p>110</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DCLG ALBs</p></td><td><p>99</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DEFRA</p></td><td><p>74</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFE ALBs</p></td><td><p>109</p></td><td><p>44</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFT ALBs</p></td><td><p>272</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DH ALBs</p></td><td><p>1217</p></td><td><p>313</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP ALBs</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MOD</p></td><td><p>352</p></td><td><p>116</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFQUAL</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFWAT</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>UKEF</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 57165 57166 question first answered 20/12/2016 10:54:41 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

657023

registered interest
date	12/12/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Government Departments: Off-payroll Working
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016, HCWS252, on off-payroll review 2014-15, which departments sought assurances on the tax affairs of 3,034 of their contractors; how many such contractors had assurances sought about them for each such Department; to which departments the 504 cases belonged; and what proportion of contracts by Department the 3,034 represents.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	57165
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/12/2016 answer text <p>The annex attached to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016 detailing the results of the off-payroll review provides a breakdown of which departments sought assurances on the tax affairs of their contractors earning more than £220 per day for more than six months, including how many such contractors had assurances sought about them and how many did not provide adequate assurance. The total number of off-payroll engagements across departments and their total value is outside the remit of the off-payroll review, and it not held by HM Treasury.</p><p> </p><p>A failure to provide assurance does not conclusively denote anything about the tax arrangements of the individuals concerned. For example, in some of the 504 instances the engagements came to a natural conclusion before assurance was received. Nevertheless, referrals to HMRC for further investigation occurred in all relevant cases across government. HMRC will investigate rule bending and breaking, including fraud investigation by both specialist civil and criminal teams where appropriate. HMRC are unable to provide details of individual cases due to taxpayer confidentiality so it is not possible to calculate the amount of tax recovered as a result of the referrals.</p><p> </p><p>The review found that not all relevant contracts contained the clause required to allow departments to seek assurance. However, assurance was requested and received from the majority of contractors regardless. As I set out in my Statement of 14 November 2016, I expect departments to have these clauses in place and departments can expect to be fined if breaches of this nature are found in the next review. The table below details contracts that, as part of this review, cannot be confirmed as containing the required clause:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Department</p></td><td><p>Number of new engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014</p></td><td><p>Number that cannot be confirmed as including contractual clauses giving the department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and NICs</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BIS ALBs</p></td><td><p>110</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DCLG ALBs</p></td><td><p>99</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DEFRA</p></td><td><p>74</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFE ALBs</p></td><td><p>109</p></td><td><p>44</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFT ALBs</p></td><td><p>272</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DH ALBs</p></td><td><p>1217</p></td><td><p>313</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP ALBs</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MOD</p></td><td><p>352</p></td><td><p>116</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFQUAL</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFWAT</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>UKEF</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 57164 57166 question first answered 20/12/2016 10:54:41 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

657024

registered interest
date	12/12/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Government Departments: Off-payroll Working
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016, HCWS252, on off-payroll review 2014-15, how many Government contracts which did not allow departments to seek assurance regarding contractors' tax affairs there were by Department; and what proportion of contracts issued in 2014-15 that number represents by Department.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	57166
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/12/2016 answer text <p>The annex attached to the Written Statement of 14 November 2016 detailing the results of the off-payroll review provides a breakdown of which departments sought assurances on the tax affairs of their contractors earning more than £220 per day for more than six months, including how many such contractors had assurances sought about them and how many did not provide adequate assurance. The total number of off-payroll engagements across departments and their total value is outside the remit of the off-payroll review, and it not held by HM Treasury.</p><p> </p><p>A failure to provide assurance does not conclusively denote anything about the tax arrangements of the individuals concerned. For example, in some of the 504 instances the engagements came to a natural conclusion before assurance was received. Nevertheless, referrals to HMRC for further investigation occurred in all relevant cases across government. HMRC will investigate rule bending and breaking, including fraud investigation by both specialist civil and criminal teams where appropriate. HMRC are unable to provide details of individual cases due to taxpayer confidentiality so it is not possible to calculate the amount of tax recovered as a result of the referrals.</p><p> </p><p>The review found that not all relevant contracts contained the clause required to allow departments to seek assurance. However, assurance was requested and received from the majority of contractors regardless. As I set out in my Statement of 14 November 2016, I expect departments to have these clauses in place and departments can expect to be fined if breaches of this nature are found in the next review. The table below details contracts that, as part of this review, cannot be confirmed as containing the required clause:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Department</p></td><td><p>Number of new engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014</p></td><td><p>Number that cannot be confirmed as including contractual clauses giving the department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and NICs</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BIS ALBs</p></td><td><p>110</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DCLG ALBs</p></td><td><p>99</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DEFRA</p></td><td><p>74</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFE ALBs</p></td><td><p>109</p></td><td><p>44</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DFT ALBs</p></td><td><p>272</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DH ALBs</p></td><td><p>1217</p></td><td><p>313</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DWP ALBs</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MOD</p></td><td><p>352</p></td><td><p>116</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFQUAL</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>OFWAT</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>UKEF</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 57164 57165 question first answered 20/12/2016 10:54:41 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647600

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	National Productivity Investment Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much of the National Productivity Investment Fund money will be spent in each NUTS 1 region.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55307
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/12/2016 answer text <p>The government has established a National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) to provide £23bn of additional spending between 2017/18 and 2021/22. Every penny spent by the UK government is explicitly earmarked for areas that are critical to boosting productivity: economic infrastructure (transport and digital communications), Research and Development (R&amp;D), and housing.</p><p> </p><p>Further details about specifically how and where this money will be invested will be set out by the relevant departments and agencies in due course.</p><p> </p><p>Where spending on measures within the NPIF does not extend to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the devolved administrations will receive funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 02/12/2016 11:07:10 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647601

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	National Productivity Investment Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many full-time equivalent staff will be employed in administering the National Productivity Investment Fund; and how many such staff will be employed in each NUTS 1 region.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55308
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/12/2016 answer text <p>The National Productivity Investment Fund will be administered by HM Treasury in collaboration with relevant departments and expert bodies, as set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Autumn Statement.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 02/12/2016 11:09:24 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647607

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Infrastructure: Finance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how (a) much funding and (b) many full-time equivalent staff the National Infrastructure Commission has allocated to its projects on (i) London transport, (ii) Transport for the North and (iii) the Cambridge-Milton Keynes- Oxford growth corridor.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55286
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/12/2016 answer text <p>The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has its own budget, and under the terms of the Charter for the NIC published in October 2016, it has complete discretion over its work programme and resource allocation. The government does not hold exact figures on the funding and resource allocations for each of the NIC’s projects.</p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 07/12/2016 11:11:30 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647608

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Housing Infrastructure Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, from which date local authorities will be able to bid for funding from the Housing Infrastructure Fund; and how the Government plans to assess which areas have the greatest housing need in allocating those funds.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55287
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/12/2016 answer text <p>The £2.3bn Housing Infrastructure Fund will be used to support local authorities in areas of high housing demand to deliver up to 100,000 homes through providing the vital infrastructure needed to make new housing developments possible – whether that is delivering new roads, faster broadband or improvements to gas and water supply.</p><p> </p><p>Money will be competitively allocated to the projects that deliver additional homes in areas of high housing demand. Further details will be set out next year.</p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 07/12/2016 11:08:37 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647620

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Treasury: Public Appointments
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 3.36 of the Autumn Statement 2016, what the membership is of the advisory panel which HM Treasury has commissioned to identify barriers to accessing long-term finance for growing firms.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55412
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/12/2016 answer text <p>The Prime Minister announced on 21 November that HM Treasury will lead a review to help growing innovative firms obtain the long-term ‘patient’ finance that they need to scale up and that Sir Damon Buffini will chair the advisory panel for the review. We intend to provide further details about the review in the forthcoming Industrial Strategy Discussion Paper.</p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 05/12/2016 16:21:11 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647624

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Treasury: Public Appointments
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 4.9 of the Autumn Statement 2016, who the members are of the new Ministerial group chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury which will oversee the delivery of priority infrastructure projects.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55483
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/12/2016 answer text <p>The membership of the group will be announced in due course.</p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 06/12/2016 10:27:16 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

647631

registered interest
date	29/11/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Housing: Construction
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which NUTS 1 regions of the UK are to receive the £7.2 billion to support the construction of new homes announced in Autumn Statement 2016.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
uin	55473
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/12/2016 answer text <p>In early October, the government announced that it would pilot accelerated construction on public sector land, backed by up to £2 billion of funding. To meet this commitment, the government will invest £1.7 billion by 2020-21 through the NPIF to speed up house building on public sector land in England through partnerships with private sector developers. The devolved administrations will receive funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way.</p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 07/12/2016 11:06:19 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson