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 printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

712610

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Child Tax Credit
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of families that would be affected, over the next five years, by the Child Tax Credits (Amendment) Regulations 2017 whereby a child or qualifying young person born before 6 April 2017 who is taken into a household as a result of a kinship care arrangement, will not be disregarded for the purposes of the two child limit if the claimant or joint claimants subsequently have a third child of their own born on or after 6 April 2017; and what is the anticipated saving to the public purse of such a change.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Drake
	uin	HL6205
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>From 6 April 2017 families will no longer be able to claim additional support of up to £2,780 per child per year for third and subsequent children born on or after this date through Child Tax Credit or Universal Credit. All households should think carefully about whether they are financially prepared to support a new child without relying on means-tested benefits.</p><p> </p><p>There will be no cash losers as a result of the Government’s policy to limit support to two children in Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit.</p><p> </p><p>We recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices as others about the number of children in their family. We have been clear that for third and subsequent children there will be exceptions for certain groups.</p><p> </p><p>The forecast savings from the policy to limit support to two children in Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit were updated at the Spring Budget 2017. The cost to the public purse of the exceptions were also outlined in the Spring Budget 2017.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 03/04/2017 14:41:56 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	4155 label Biography information for Baroness Drake

712609

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government upon what scientific basis the Expert Reference Group for the Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health (JCPMH), in publishing their guide on Commissioning for Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS), based their decision that myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) should be categorised as a functional somatic disorder, given that the World Health Organisation’s mandatory International Classification of Diseases categorises the illness as neurological under ICD 10-G93.3, and that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has not listed ME/CFS as a functional somatic disorder; and whether they will withdraw the recommendation for cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise to be commissioned for patients with ME/CFS until NICE Guideline CG53 is reviewed.
	tabling member printed	The Countess of Mar
	uin	HL6204
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/03/2017 answer text <p>The Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health is not a Government body, it is a collaboration between 17 leading organisations including the Department of Health, and is co-chaired by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners. The Department was not closely involved in the writing or production of this document.</p><p> </p><p>The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently reviewing the guidance GC53 to consider whether it should be updated to take account of new evidence. NICE are expected to reach a decision on whether the guidance should be updated in summer 2017.</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member printed Lord O'Shaughnessy question first answered 28/03/2017 13:23:12 answering member 4545 label Biography information for Lord O'Shaughnessy
	tabling member	1861 label Biography information for The Countess of Mar

712608

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Home Office: Correspondence
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to reply to a letter from the European Centre for the Study of Extremism sent on 27 February about requests for UK visas for Syrian officials.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Cox
	uin	HL6203
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>The Home Office is not aware of any correspondence from the European Centre for the Study of Extremism.</p> answering member printed Baroness Williams of Trafford question first answered 03/04/2017 12:14:42 answering member 4311 label Biography information for Baroness Williams of Trafford
	tabling member	3364 label Biography information for Baroness Cox

712607

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	East Coast Main Line
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 16 March (HL5882), in the light of the very heavy use that is made of the East Coast Main Line and the fragility of the infrastructure, whether they consider that four per cent of the enhancement spend in Control Period 6 is adequate to sustain this railway line.
	tabling member printed	Lord Bradshaw
	uin	HL6202
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/03/2017 answer text <p>This government set out ambitious outcomes for the East Coast Main Line as part of the 2012 High Level Output Specification. The East Coast Main Line infrastructure enhancements will enable capacity for an additional 2 additional trains per hour between Kings Cross and Doncaster and an additional train per hour between York and Newcastle. The enhancements also enable the introduction of the new Intercity Express Programme trains which will increase reliability, seating capacity and reduce journey times, allowing the fastest services to achieve 4 hours from London to Edinburgh and 2 hours from London to Leeds. The first of these enhancements, the opening of a new platform at Doncaster, has already been delivered.</p> answering member printed Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon question first answered 27/03/2017 13:06:45 answering member 4210 label Biography information for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	tabling member	2483 label Biography information for Lord Bradshaw

712606

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	Felixstowe Branch Line
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 14 March (HL5764), whether they would look favourably on a proposal to use a high quality rail replacement bus service in place of a passenger train at less busy times on the rail line between Ipswich and Felixstowe if it were to be brought forward by the operator and Network Rail.
	tabling member printed	Lord Bradshaw
	uin	HL6201
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/03/2017 answer text <p>If a proposal were to be brought forward by the train operator and Network Rail, we would consider it carefully. No proposal has however been submitted. The specification and provision of rail replacement services is a commercial and operational matter for the operator and Network Rail, not the Government.</p> answering member printed Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon question first answered 27/03/2017 13:22:20 answering member 4210 label Biography information for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	tabling member	2483 label Biography information for Lord Bradshaw

712605

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Care Homes: Oxfordshire
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Shaughnessy on 7 February (HL4908), how many residential and nursing home places there were in Oxfordshire in (1) 2015, and (2) 2016.
	tabling member printed	Lord Bradshaw
	uin	HL6200
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/03/2017 answer text <p>The number of beds in residential and nursing homes Oxfordshire in April 2015 and April 2016 is shown in the following table. The table shows the number of beds at the beginning of each financial year as the numbers fluctuate slightly month on month.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><p>Oxfordshire Local Authority</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Month</p></td><td><p>Total care beds</p></td><td><p>Residential care beds</p></td><td><p>Nursing care beds</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2015</p></td><td><p>4,897</p></td><td><p>1,353</p></td><td><p>3,544</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2016</p></td><td><p>4,943</p></td><td><p>1,333</p></td><td><p>3,610</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Source:</em> The Care Quality Commission</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member printed Lord O'Shaughnessy question first answered 29/03/2017 14:45:35 answering member 4545 label Biography information for Lord O'Shaughnessy
	tabling member	2483 label Biography information for Lord Bradshaw

712604

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Workplace Pensions: Tax Allowances
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contact they have had with the Pensions Regulator during the past six months to ensure that the Regulator and the MasterTrust Assurance Framework take all necessary steps to ensure that workers earning below the personal tax threshold, and their employers, who are paying into net pay pension schemes under the auto-enrolment rules, are not disadvantaged by the loss of tax relief, and are properly informed of the personal impact of those schemes.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
	uin	HL6199
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>The Government has regular discussions with the Pensions Regulator on a range of issues, including workplace pensions.</p><p> </p><p>Workplace pension schemes are chosen by employers and the Pensions Regulator (TPR) provides guidance on this in relation to automatic enrolment. The guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax. It also points out that some schemes that use the net pay arrangement may have lower charges than schemes that operate relief at source.</p><p>All employers, including public sector employers, are expected to follow TPR’s guidance about providing their employees with relevant information on the arrangements for tax relief.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL6196 HL6198 question first answered 03/04/2017 14:40:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann

712603

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Occupational Pensions: Tax Allowances
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that employers and workers are informed that net pay arrangement pension schemes may be unsuitable for workers who earn below the personal tax threshold unless the employer or the scheme pays in the amount they would receive in tax relief on their behalf.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
	uin	HL6198
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>The Government has regular discussions with the Pensions Regulator on a range of issues, including workplace pensions.</p><p> </p><p>Workplace pension schemes are chosen by employers and the Pensions Regulator (TPR) provides guidance on this in relation to automatic enrolment. The guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax. It also points out that some schemes that use the net pay arrangement may have lower charges than schemes that operate relief at source.</p><p>All employers, including public sector employers, are expected to follow TPR’s guidance about providing their employees with relevant information on the arrangements for tax relief.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL6196 HL6199 question first answered 03/04/2017 14:40:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann

712602

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Workplace Pensions: Tax Allowances
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges faced by low earners whose employers use a net pay arrangement pension scheme which denies them the tax relief they would receive in a relief at source scheme.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
	uin	HL6197
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>Tax relief is granted on contributions to all registered pension schemes, including workplace pensions. This relief can be provided for through two mechanisms: net pay or relief at source.</p><p> </p><p>Where a scheme operates the net pay mechanism, contributions are deducted from pay before any tax is applied. This approach applies to all members of the scheme including those earning (1) between £10,000 and £11,000 a year from their employer, and (2) below £10,000 a year from one or more employers. The pension provision would depend on these contributions as well as those made by the employer.</p><p> </p><p>The Government appreciates the impacts on low paid workers whose employers use a net pay arrangement pension scheme. However, it has not been possible to identify any straightforward or proportionate means to align the effects of the net pay and relief at source mechanisms more closely for this population.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL6194 HL6195 question first answered 03/04/2017 14:29:04 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann

712601

	registered interest
	date	20/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Workplace Pensions: Tax Allowances
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that employers and workers are told that net pay arrangement pension schemes may be unsuitable for workers who earn below the personal tax threshold, and that they face paying more than 20 per cent extra for their pension than if they were in a relief at source scheme.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
	uin	HL6196
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/04/2017 answer text <p>The Government has regular discussions with the Pensions Regulator on a range of issues, including workplace pensions.</p><p> </p><p>Workplace pension schemes are chosen by employers and the Pensions Regulator (TPR) provides guidance on this in relation to automatic enrolment. The guidance covers the choice between net pay and relief at source schemes, and the implications of net pay schemes for employees who do not pay tax. It also points out that some schemes that use the net pay arrangement may have lower charges than schemes that operate relief at source.</p><p>All employers, including public sector employers, are expected to follow TPR’s guidance about providing their employees with relevant information on the arrangements for tax relief.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL6198 HL6199 question first answered 03/04/2017 14:40:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann