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

971462

registered interest
date	10/09/2018
answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
answering dept id	29
answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
hansard heading	Universal Credit: Self-employed
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if she has made an estimate of the cost to the public purse of applying the minimum income floor for self-employed claimants of universal credit on an annual basis.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	172581
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/09/2018 answer text <p>The Government recognises the need for claimants who are setting up a business to be given time to establish themselves and develop their business and customer base. However, different businesses and individuals will take different periods of time to reach profitability. The intention of the start-up period is to give claimants the breathing space they need to work out how to support themselves while running their business - including identifying other sources of income or investment - while not subsidising claimants indefinitely to pursue unsustainable activities. This strikes a sensible balance between support for new business, not trapping claimants in welfare dependency, and protecting public funds.</p><p> </p><p>Extending the start-up period beyond one year could diminish the incentive effect of the Minimum Income Floor (MIF), which is to encourage claimants to grow their earnings, whether through self-employment, combining that with other work, or moving to one of the over 800,000 current job vacancies. It would also add complexity, with no guarantee of better outcomes for either the claimant or the taxpayer. The government therefore has no current plans to reform the MIF or to extend the start-up period for self-employed claimants in Universal Credit.</p><p> </p><p>In their January 2018 report, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the impact of the MIF on the public purse – their analysis is summarised in their welfare trends report <a href="http://obr.uk/wtr/welfare-trends-report-january-2018/" target="_blank">http://obr.uk/wtr/welfare-trends-report-january-2018/</a></p><p> </p><p>With regards to the estimate of the cost to the public purse of extending the start-up period for recipients of universal credit who are newly self-employed from 12 months to (a) 18 months and (b) 24 months, a formal assessment has not been made.</p> answering member constituency Reading West answering member printed Alok Sharma grouped question UIN 172582 172583 question first answered 13/09/2018 16:59:44 answering member 4014 label Biography information for Sir Alok Sharma
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

971463

registered interest
date	10/09/2018
answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
answering dept id	29
answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
hansard heading	Universal Credit: Self-employed
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending the start-up period for recipients of universal credit who are newly self-employed.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	172582
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/09/2018 answer text <p>The Government recognises the need for claimants who are setting up a business to be given time to establish themselves and develop their business and customer base. However, different businesses and individuals will take different periods of time to reach profitability. The intention of the start-up period is to give claimants the breathing space they need to work out how to support themselves while running their business - including identifying other sources of income or investment - while not subsidising claimants indefinitely to pursue unsustainable activities. This strikes a sensible balance between support for new business, not trapping claimants in welfare dependency, and protecting public funds.</p><p> </p><p>Extending the start-up period beyond one year could diminish the incentive effect of the Minimum Income Floor (MIF), which is to encourage claimants to grow their earnings, whether through self-employment, combining that with other work, or moving to one of the over 800,000 current job vacancies. It would also add complexity, with no guarantee of better outcomes for either the claimant or the taxpayer. The government therefore has no current plans to reform the MIF or to extend the start-up period for self-employed claimants in Universal Credit.</p><p> </p><p>In their January 2018 report, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the impact of the MIF on the public purse – their analysis is summarised in their welfare trends report <a href="http://obr.uk/wtr/welfare-trends-report-january-2018/" target="_blank">http://obr.uk/wtr/welfare-trends-report-january-2018/</a></p><p> </p><p>With regards to the estimate of the cost to the public purse of extending the start-up period for recipients of universal credit who are newly self-employed from 12 months to (a) 18 months and (b) 24 months, a formal assessment has not been made.</p> answering member constituency Reading West answering member printed Alok Sharma grouped question UIN 172581 172583 question first answered 13/09/2018 16:59:44 answering member 4014 label Biography information for Sir Alok Sharma
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

934237

registered interest
date	03/07/2018
answering body	Women and Equalities
answering dept id	31
answering dept short name	Women and Equalities
answering dept sort name	Women and Equalities
hansard heading	Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what steps she is taking to ensure that deaf and disabled people are able to stand for election and compete with other candidates on a level playing field irrespective of their chances of winning.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	160178
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/07/2018 answer text <p>The Government believes that political parties have the prime responsibility for supporting their disabled candidates. There will be ways that the Government can help, which is why the Minister for Women and Equalities announced that the Government Equalities Office will, with others, undertake a programme of work in this area. Within 12 months, we hope to have political parties offering and advertising support, as well as solutions to help independent candidates. The funding of up to £250,000 that the Minister for Women and Equalities announced is intended to provide support for disabled candidates in the interim, while that programme of work is on-going.</p><p> </p><p>We are working on what the interim funding will cover and how it will be delivered. Further details will be announced in due course.</p> answering member constituency Louth and Horncastle answering member printed Victoria Atkins grouped question UIN 159577 question first answered 09/07/2018 13:47:09 answering member 4399 label Biography information for Victoria Atkins
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

933937

registered interest
date	02/07/2018
answering body	Women and Equalities
answering dept id	31
answering dept short name	Women and Equalities
answering dept sort name	Women and Equalities
hansard heading	Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, with reference to the Written Statement of 17 May 2018, Access to Elected Office for Disabled People, HCWS695, whether a Deaf and Disabled People's Organisation or an alliance of Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations will be appointed to administer the funds announced to support disabled candidates wishing to stand in the local elections in May 2019.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	159577
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/07/2018 answer text <p>The Government believes that political parties have the prime responsibility for supporting their disabled candidates. There will be ways that the Government can help, which is why the Minister for Women and Equalities announced that the Government Equalities Office will, with others, undertake a programme of work in this area. Within 12 months, we hope to have political parties offering and advertising support, as well as solutions to help independent candidates. The funding of up to £250,000 that the Minister for Women and Equalities announced is intended to provide support for disabled candidates in the interim, while that programme of work is on-going.</p><p> </p><p>We are working on what the interim funding will cover and how it will be delivered. Further details will be announced in due course.</p> answering member constituency Louth and Horncastle answering member printed Victoria Atkins grouped question UIN 160178 question first answered 09/07/2018 13:47:09 answering member 4399 label Biography information for Victoria Atkins
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

924687

registered interest
date	15/06/2018
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: Freedom of Information
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many and what proportion of freedom of information requests have not been responded to within the 20 working days target by each Department in each of the last three years.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	154157
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/06/2018 answer text The Government publishes statistics on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 within central government, including on the number and proportion of requests that were answered within the 20 working days target, and on the number and proportion of requests that were answered within a permitted deadline extension. These can be found at the following link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics</a>. answering member constituency Norwich North answering member printed Chloe Smith question first answered 21/06/2018 09:16:55 answering member 1609 label Biography information for Chloe Smith
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

924688

registered interest
date	15/06/2018
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: Freedom of Information
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the longest time was for a response to a freedom of information request in each Government department in each of the last three years.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	154158
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/06/2018 answer text The statistics collected and published centrally by the Government on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 within central government do not record the exact length of time taken to respond to individual requests. The statistics report on the number and proportion of requests that were answered within the 20 working days target, and on the number and proportion of requests that were answered within a permitted deadline extension. answering member constituency Norwich North answering member printed Chloe Smith question first answered 21/06/2018 09:18:28 answering member 1609 label Biography information for Chloe Smith
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

922371

registered interest
date	12/06/2018
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent steps HMRC has taken in respect of (a) disguised remuneration schemes and (b) the promoters of such schemes.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	152724
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2018 answer text <p>The charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans is targeted at artificial tax avoidance schemes where earnings were paid via a third party in the form of ‘loans’ which in reality were never repaid.</p><p> </p><p>DR scheme users took home almost all of their pay tax-free. However, these schemes never worked and the amounts paid were always taxable under the law at the time.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has taken this action to ensure that everybody pays the taxes they owe and contributes towards the public-funded services from which they benefit. HMRC has provided a number of opportunities for DR scheme users to settle their tax affairs, and is actively encouraging scheme users to come forward and settle their tax position ahead of the loan charge arising. HMRC will help those who are in genuine financial difficulty by allowing them to pay their tax bill over time. The charge on DR loans is specifically targeted at these contrived tax avoidance schemes and is not expected to have significant effects on the economy or the NHS.</p><p> </p><p>The Government estimates that up to 50,000 individuals will be affected by the charge on DR loans. Further information can be found at the ‘Disguised remuneration: further update’ policy paper: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update</a>.</p><p> </p><p>The loan charge applies to all users of DR tax avoidance schemes. It does not single out a specific group or industry. No estimate of the number of individuals affected at sector level is available.</p><p> </p><p>Fewer than 30 individuals declared the use of a loan scheme on their Self Assessment tax returns for the 2016/17 tax year. No estimate has been made of the number of schemes currently operating in the UK. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) continues to challenge avoidance schemes that are declared, and carries out extensive investigation work to track down those that are not.</p><p> </p><p>Enquiries into DR tax avoidance cases can be time consuming and take several years because of the very complex nature of the arrangements. HMRC also relies on the cooperation of scheme users to provide information and agree to pay the tax they owe. A breakdown of the number of DR cases open by the number of years they have been open is not available, as HMRC’s operational data is not held in a way where this information is readily accessible.</p><p> </p><p>Pay As You Earn (PAYE) liabilities fall on the employer in the first instance. The loan charge will not change this principle and HMRC will pursue employers who have used DR schemes for the tax that is due. HMRC will only go to the employee to settle their income tax liability in cases where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer, for example where the employer is no longer in existence.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC pursues those who promote or enable tax avoidance schemes to ensure that nobody profits from selling avoidance. HMRC is able to charge tough penalties of up to one million pounds where promoters do not provide clear and accurate information to their clients, and penalties of 100% of the fees earned by anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise enables the use of tax avoidance arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC is proactively reporting DR scheme promoters to the Advertising Standards Authority and professional bodies where they make misleading claims about their products and services or provide misleading advice.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC will also consider criminal investigation where appropriate. Promoters of tax avoidance schemes have been prosecuted, leading to convictions and jail terms.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 152725 152726 152727 152728 152729 152730 152731 152732 question first answered 20/06/2018 15:13:35 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

922372

registered interest
date	12/06/2018
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the number of disguised remuneration schemes operating in the UK; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	152725
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2018 answer text <p>The charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans is targeted at artificial tax avoidance schemes where earnings were paid via a third party in the form of ‘loans’ which in reality were never repaid.</p><p> </p><p>DR scheme users took home almost all of their pay tax-free. However, these schemes never worked and the amounts paid were always taxable under the law at the time.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has taken this action to ensure that everybody pays the taxes they owe and contributes towards the public-funded services from which they benefit. HMRC has provided a number of opportunities for DR scheme users to settle their tax affairs, and is actively encouraging scheme users to come forward and settle their tax position ahead of the loan charge arising. HMRC will help those who are in genuine financial difficulty by allowing them to pay their tax bill over time. The charge on DR loans is specifically targeted at these contrived tax avoidance schemes and is not expected to have significant effects on the economy or the NHS.</p><p> </p><p>The Government estimates that up to 50,000 individuals will be affected by the charge on DR loans. Further information can be found at the ‘Disguised remuneration: further update’ policy paper: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update</a>.</p><p> </p><p>The loan charge applies to all users of DR tax avoidance schemes. It does not single out a specific group or industry. No estimate of the number of individuals affected at sector level is available.</p><p> </p><p>Fewer than 30 individuals declared the use of a loan scheme on their Self Assessment tax returns for the 2016/17 tax year. No estimate has been made of the number of schemes currently operating in the UK. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) continues to challenge avoidance schemes that are declared, and carries out extensive investigation work to track down those that are not.</p><p> </p><p>Enquiries into DR tax avoidance cases can be time consuming and take several years because of the very complex nature of the arrangements. HMRC also relies on the cooperation of scheme users to provide information and agree to pay the tax they owe. A breakdown of the number of DR cases open by the number of years they have been open is not available, as HMRC’s operational data is not held in a way where this information is readily accessible.</p><p> </p><p>Pay As You Earn (PAYE) liabilities fall on the employer in the first instance. The loan charge will not change this principle and HMRC will pursue employers who have used DR schemes for the tax that is due. HMRC will only go to the employee to settle their income tax liability in cases where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer, for example where the employer is no longer in existence.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC pursues those who promote or enable tax avoidance schemes to ensure that nobody profits from selling avoidance. HMRC is able to charge tough penalties of up to one million pounds where promoters do not provide clear and accurate information to their clients, and penalties of 100% of the fees earned by anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise enables the use of tax avoidance arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC is proactively reporting DR scheme promoters to the Advertising Standards Authority and professional bodies where they make misleading claims about their products and services or provide misleading advice.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC will also consider criminal investigation where appropriate. Promoters of tax avoidance schemes have been prosecuted, leading to convictions and jail terms.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 152724 152726 152727 152728 152729 152730 152731 152732 question first answered 20/06/2018 15:13:36 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

922373

registered interest
date	12/06/2018
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many individuals declared the use of a loan scheme on their tax return for the most recent year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	152726
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2018 answer text <p>The charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans is targeted at artificial tax avoidance schemes where earnings were paid via a third party in the form of ‘loans’ which in reality were never repaid.</p><p> </p><p>DR scheme users took home almost all of their pay tax-free. However, these schemes never worked and the amounts paid were always taxable under the law at the time.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has taken this action to ensure that everybody pays the taxes they owe and contributes towards the public-funded services from which they benefit. HMRC has provided a number of opportunities for DR scheme users to settle their tax affairs, and is actively encouraging scheme users to come forward and settle their tax position ahead of the loan charge arising. HMRC will help those who are in genuine financial difficulty by allowing them to pay their tax bill over time. The charge on DR loans is specifically targeted at these contrived tax avoidance schemes and is not expected to have significant effects on the economy or the NHS.</p><p> </p><p>The Government estimates that up to 50,000 individuals will be affected by the charge on DR loans. Further information can be found at the ‘Disguised remuneration: further update’ policy paper: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update</a>.</p><p> </p><p>The loan charge applies to all users of DR tax avoidance schemes. It does not single out a specific group or industry. No estimate of the number of individuals affected at sector level is available.</p><p> </p><p>Fewer than 30 individuals declared the use of a loan scheme on their Self Assessment tax returns for the 2016/17 tax year. No estimate has been made of the number of schemes currently operating in the UK. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) continues to challenge avoidance schemes that are declared, and carries out extensive investigation work to track down those that are not.</p><p> </p><p>Enquiries into DR tax avoidance cases can be time consuming and take several years because of the very complex nature of the arrangements. HMRC also relies on the cooperation of scheme users to provide information and agree to pay the tax they owe. A breakdown of the number of DR cases open by the number of years they have been open is not available, as HMRC’s operational data is not held in a way where this information is readily accessible.</p><p> </p><p>Pay As You Earn (PAYE) liabilities fall on the employer in the first instance. The loan charge will not change this principle and HMRC will pursue employers who have used DR schemes for the tax that is due. HMRC will only go to the employee to settle their income tax liability in cases where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer, for example where the employer is no longer in existence.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC pursues those who promote or enable tax avoidance schemes to ensure that nobody profits from selling avoidance. HMRC is able to charge tough penalties of up to one million pounds where promoters do not provide clear and accurate information to their clients, and penalties of 100% of the fees earned by anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise enables the use of tax avoidance arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC is proactively reporting DR scheme promoters to the Advertising Standards Authority and professional bodies where they make misleading claims about their products and services or provide misleading advice.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC will also consider criminal investigation where appropriate. Promoters of tax avoidance schemes have been prosecuted, leading to convictions and jail terms.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 152724 152725 152727 152728 152729 152730 152731 152732 question first answered 20/06/2018 15:13:36 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

922374

registered interest
date	12/06/2018
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many tax inquiries on disguised remuneration schemes have been open for more than than (a) five, (b) seven and (c) 10 years.
tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
uin	152727
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2018 answer text <p>The charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans is targeted at artificial tax avoidance schemes where earnings were paid via a third party in the form of ‘loans’ which in reality were never repaid.</p><p> </p><p>DR scheme users took home almost all of their pay tax-free. However, these schemes never worked and the amounts paid were always taxable under the law at the time.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has taken this action to ensure that everybody pays the taxes they owe and contributes towards the public-funded services from which they benefit. HMRC has provided a number of opportunities for DR scheme users to settle their tax affairs, and is actively encouraging scheme users to come forward and settle their tax position ahead of the loan charge arising. HMRC will help those who are in genuine financial difficulty by allowing them to pay their tax bill over time. The charge on DR loans is specifically targeted at these contrived tax avoidance schemes and is not expected to have significant effects on the economy or the NHS.</p><p> </p><p>The Government estimates that up to 50,000 individuals will be affected by the charge on DR loans. Further information can be found at the ‘Disguised remuneration: further update’ policy paper: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update</a>.</p><p> </p><p>The loan charge applies to all users of DR tax avoidance schemes. It does not single out a specific group or industry. No estimate of the number of individuals affected at sector level is available.</p><p> </p><p>Fewer than 30 individuals declared the use of a loan scheme on their Self Assessment tax returns for the 2016/17 tax year. No estimate has been made of the number of schemes currently operating in the UK. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) continues to challenge avoidance schemes that are declared, and carries out extensive investigation work to track down those that are not.</p><p> </p><p>Enquiries into DR tax avoidance cases can be time consuming and take several years because of the very complex nature of the arrangements. HMRC also relies on the cooperation of scheme users to provide information and agree to pay the tax they owe. A breakdown of the number of DR cases open by the number of years they have been open is not available, as HMRC’s operational data is not held in a way where this information is readily accessible.</p><p> </p><p>Pay As You Earn (PAYE) liabilities fall on the employer in the first instance. The loan charge will not change this principle and HMRC will pursue employers who have used DR schemes for the tax that is due. HMRC will only go to the employee to settle their income tax liability in cases where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer, for example where the employer is no longer in existence.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC pursues those who promote or enable tax avoidance schemes to ensure that nobody profits from selling avoidance. HMRC is able to charge tough penalties of up to one million pounds where promoters do not provide clear and accurate information to their clients, and penalties of 100% of the fees earned by anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise enables the use of tax avoidance arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC is proactively reporting DR scheme promoters to the Advertising Standards Authority and professional bodies where they make misleading claims about their products and services or provide misleading advice.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC will also consider criminal investigation where appropriate. Promoters of tax avoidance schemes have been prosecuted, leading to convictions and jail terms.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 152724 152725 152726 152728 152729 152730 152731 152732 question first answered 20/06/2018 15:13:36 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd