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

818707

	registered interest
	date	08/01/2018
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Electric Vehicles: Finance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much money from the Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund his Department plans to allocate to each NUTS 1 region.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	121471
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/01/2018 answer text <p>Following the announcement of this fund at Autumn Budget, the Government is engaging with the private sector to ensure that it is set up in the most effective way. Further details will be announced in due course.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Norfolk answering member printed Elizabeth Truss question first answered 11/01/2018 14:09:25 answering member 4097 label Biography information for Elizabeth Truss
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

818711

	registered interest
	date	08/01/2018
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Research: Tax Allowances
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many businesses have been supported by R&D tax relief in each NUTS 1 region in each year since 2006-07.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	121475
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/01/2018 answer text <p>HMRC publishes annual statistics on R&amp;D tax relief here:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/corporate-tax-research-and-development-tax-credit" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/corporate-tax-research-and-development-tax-credit</a></p><p> </p><p>Table RD5 shows the number of R&amp;D tax credit claims made by companies registered in each NUTS1 region. Data for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are available at the above link.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Data for previous years back to 2010-11 can be found in the National Archives:</p><p> </p><p>2012-13</p><p><a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150131064316/https:/www.gov.uk/government/collections/corporate-tax-research-and-development-tax-credit" target="_blank">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150131064316/https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/corporate-tax-research-and-development-tax-credit</a></p><p> </p><p>2011-12</p><p><a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206152752/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/research-tc.htm" target="_blank">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206152752/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/research-tc.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>2010-11</p><p><a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130102193237/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/research-tc.htm" target="_blank">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130102193237/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/research-tc.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>The regional split is based on the company’s registered office address, which may not be where the R&amp;D activity takes place. Companies may make more than one claim in the same year. These data should therefore be interpreted with caution.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 15/01/2018 15:52:58 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

818718

	registered interest
	date	08/01/2018
	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, with reference to page 130 of the Industrial Strategy, published in November 2017, how much has funding has been allocated to (a) transport, (b) housing, (c) digital and (d) research & development in each NUTS 1 region by the National Productivity Investment Fund.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	121482
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/01/2018 answer text <p>A large proportion of funding from the NPIF – established at Autumn Statement 2016 and expanded to £31bn at Autumn Budget 2017 – has already been allocated to its four target sectors: transport, housing, digital communications and R&amp;D. Breakdowns within these sectors can be found on page 44 of the 2017 Autumn Budget document. Specific projects are selected through a variety of mechanisms that are tailored to achieve programme goals and ensure high value for money.</p><p> </p><p>Funding allocations from the NPIF are not specifically made by region. However the NPIF is intended to fund projects that help to boost productivity and prosperity throughout the UK and across regions. For example, at the Autumn Budget 2017, the government made an allocation specifically benefitting the North East, announcing £337m of new funding from the NPIF to replace rolling stock on the Tyne &amp; Wear Metro. It also established a new £1.7bn Transforming Cities Fund. This funding will be widely distributed, with £840m of per capita funding to be transferred to the six Mayoral Combined Authorities with directly elected mayors, and £840m open for competition for transport projects in cities. These announcements and others demonstrate a commitment to invest to improve productivity in all UK regions.</p> answering member constituency South West Norfolk answering member printed Elizabeth Truss question first answered 11/01/2018 14:16:03 answering member 4097 label Biography information for Elizabeth Truss
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

712426

	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	Apprentices: Taxation
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much funding each NUTS 1 region will receive from the Government's policy to top-up the apprenticeship levy in 2017-18.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	68618
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/03/2017 answer text <p>The apprenticeship levy will apply across the UK and will be collected from employers on a UK wide basis.</p><p> </p><p>In England, levy paying employers will be able to access their funds through the apprenticeship service to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment. Employers will also benefit from a 10% top up to monthly funds entering an account.</p><p> </p><p>Regional forecasts of contribution to the apprenticeship levy have not been made, and it not possible to say how much each local area will benefit from the 10% top up. However, the expected yield for the apprenticeship levy is published in table B.5: ‘Current Receipts’, in the Spring Budget 2017 document available here:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597467/spring_budget_2017_web.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597467/spring_budget_2017_web.pdf</a></p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 28/03/2017 15:55:27 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

710454

	registered interest
	date	13/03/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Tax Collection
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 12 July 2016 to Question 42176, on tax collection, for what reason technical risks not subject to litigation do not form part of the tax gap; and what proportion of unpaid corporation tax identified as technical risks not subject to litigation was collected by the Exchequer in the last two fiscal years for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	67540
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/03/2017 answer text <p>The large business corporation tax gap relates to those cases where it was not possible to reach agreement on the amount of tax to be paid. Tax on technical risks not subject to litigation are excluded from the tax gap because for these cases agreement is expected or has been reached between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the customer in line with the Litigation and Settlement Strategy. HMRC collects the tax due under the law in accordance with the published Litigation and Settlement Strategy.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 21/03/2017 11:54:45 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

694302

	registered interest
	date	24/02/2017
	answering body	HM Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
	hansard heading	Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme: Females
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many and what proportion of the recipients of funding from the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme were (a) female entrepreneurs and (b) companies with at least one woman in a leadership position in each year since that scheme was established.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	65492
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2017 answer text <p>The Government does not hold this information. HM Revenue and Customs does not collect information on the number, role or gender of officers and directors of companies that apply to use the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 01/03/2017 15:30:43 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

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

657278

	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	Concentrix
	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, HCWS251, update on HM Revenue and Customs' contract with Concentrix, of those Mandatory Considerations against Concentrix tax credit decisions that are still outstanding, what the dates were on which the cases relating to those decisions were first lodged; and what the date was when the case longest awaiting consideration was lodged.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	57162
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/12/2016 answer text <p>As at 18 December 2016 there are 1,302 Concentrix related Mandatory Reconsiderations outstanding.</p><p> </p><p>The oldest case still outstanding was received on 28 November 2016, all other outstanding Mandatory Reconsiderations were received after 28 November.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 20/12/2016 10:47:13 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson