Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Erasmus deal with the EU has (a) asymmetric or (b) symmetric early termination payments, payable (i) by the United Kingdom if it terminates early and (ii) by the European Union if they terminate early, and what provisions apply if the cost increases in Year 2 of the agreement once the first-year discount expires.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
UK association to Erasmus+ is provided for through technical amendments to Protocol I of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which was agreed in 2020 and provides for UK association to EU Programmes under Part 5.
Section 3 of Part 5 of the TCA outlines the legal mechanism under which the UK’s participation in all EU Programmes, including Erasmus+, would be subject to suspension and/or termination.
Asked by: Andrew Griffith (Conservative - Arundel and South Downs)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury plans to respond to the correspondence of 15 January 2026 from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The correspondence from the hon. Member is receiving attention, and a response will be issued in due course.
Asked by: Mel Stride (Conservative - Central Devon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how the policy to write off 90% of local authority SEND debs will be funded.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
This funding relates to money that has already been spent by local authorities. The effect of the decision referred to is to transfer the accounting for that historic spending from local to central government. Any impact will be reflected in the OBR’s upcoming forecast.
Asked by: Christopher Chope (Conservative - Christchurch)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many UK businesses at the most recent date for which information is available have had their Government Gateway access restricted on the grounds that their accounts may have been compromised by fraudulent attempts to reclaim VAT.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
The security of HMRC’s online services is a top priority. We are aware of attempts by organised criminals to access VAT accounts using genuine customers’ registration details, and our immediate focus is to protect customer data and correct any affected tax or payment records. Customer accounts may be restricted, i.e. suspended or deleted, for a range of reasons, including proactive fraud monitoring, reports of suspicious activity, and the closure of inactive accounts. Specialist security and VAT teams are actively investigating and delivering improvements to strengthen VAT account security, which could include restricting accounts where fraudulent activity has not been identified.
When and if fraudulent activity has occurred, HMRC contacts affected customers to explain the remedial actions taken and outline any steps they need to take.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 4 February 2026 to Question 118047, which section of the most recent Block Grant Transparency publication details the Barnett consequentials allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive following increases in police funding to PCCs in England and Wales in each year since 2020.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The Barnett formula applies to all changes in UK Government Departmental Expenditure Limits, as set out in the Statement of Funding Policy. The Block Grant Transparency publication breaks down all changes to the Northern Ireland Executive’s block grant funding since Spending Review 2015. The most recent report was published in October 2025.
At spending reviews, the Barnett formula is applied to overall changes to department funding, rather than to individual programmes or specific funding streams. Therefore, it is not possible to identify or specify Barnett consequentials allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive for particular programmes where funding was provided at spending reviews, including increases in police funding to Police and Crime Commisioners in England and Wales.
Asked by: Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru - Ynys Môn)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to Written Statement UIN HCWS1315, what Barnett consequentials will be provided to the Welsh Government as a result of the grants awarded to local authorities in England to address SEND deficits.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Any Barnett consequentials generated will be confirmed when departments formally receive funding; the next opportunity is Spring Forecast 2026.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to answer 107494 of 26 January on Child Benefit, how many of the compliance enquiries issued to Northern Ireland claimants (i) were confirmed to be eligible, (ii) were found to have been incorrectly receiving the benefit and (iii) are yet to receive an outcome.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
I refer the Hon Member to the response provided to 110941 on 10 February 2026.
Asked by: Mel Stride (Conservative - Central Devon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how the cost of the additional business rates support for pubs will be funded.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
From April, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill on top of the support announced at Budget, ahead of their bills being frozen in real terms for a further two years. The cost of this support will not impact other sectors’ bills.
Final costings will be confirmed at a fiscal event in the usual way.
Asked by: Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the net annual cost to the Treasury of freezing business rates on recording studios.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government has no current plans to freeze business rates for recording studios.
At the Budget in November 2025, the Government announced a £4.3 billion support package to support ratepayers across all sectors seeing bill increases. This includes a redesigned Transitional Relief scheme, which protects ratepayers from large overnight increases as a result of the revaluation.
The Government values the music industry and understands that recording studios are a vital part of the infrastructure of the industry. The Music Growth Package will see Government funding for the sector more than double from £4.1 million to up to £10 million a year for the next three years.
Asked by: Jo White (Labour - Bassetlaw)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what information her Department holds on whether the Crown Estate sought legal advice on the potential liability of their properties being used for the procurement of prostitution.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The Epstein scandal exposed a culture that didn't value the lives of women. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of a government tackling misogyny in schools, halving violence against women and girls and overhauling how our criminal justice system serves victims.
The Crown Estate is an independent commercial organisation, and the Government is not involved in its operations and day-to-day decision making.
The Crown Estate has confirmed that its leases contain a nuisance clause that prohibits illegal or immoral use, and that it enforces those leases in accordance with applicable law.
The Crown Estate has confirmed that its residential lease arrangements do not require monitoring or recording the identities of a leaseholder’s private visitors. Such monitoring would be incompatible with privacy and data protection requirements and with the long-established covenant owed to leaseholders under landlord-tenant law.