Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much funding has been raised by the apprenticeship levy in each of the last 7 years.
Answered by Richard Fuller
The Apprenticeship Levy was introduced in April 2017. Monthly receipts data for the Apprenticeship Levy is published by HM Revenue and Customs in their Tax and NIC Receipts publication which can be found online at:
HMRC tax receipts and National Insurance contributions for the UK - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
A condensed version of the table of interest shows how much funding has been raised by the Apprenticeship Levy in each year since it was introduced in financial year 2017/18:
Table: HMRC Receipts for Apprenticeship Levy by Financial Year
Financial Year | Apprenticeship Levy (£ million) |
2017 to 2018 | 2,271 |
2018 to 2019 | 2,713 |
2019 to 2020 | 2,798 |
2020 to 2021 | 2,910 |
2021 to 2022 | 3,213 |
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of reducing the differences between tax rates for different categories of alcohol and applying one basic rate per litre of pure alcohol to all categories of drinks, in order to simplify and standardise the alcohol duty system.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government believes that the reforms announced at Autumn Budget 2021 will achieve a duty system that is simpler, fairer and better supports public health in the round.
There will be one duty band for all products between 8.5%-22% ABV based on their alcohol content. This simplifies the existing system by eliminating the different duty rates for still wines, sparkling wines, spirit-based liqueurs and stronger beers, and replacing them with a single rate.
In principle, the Government considers it is right to tax higher strength products a higher rate of duty per unit. Introducing one basic rate per litre of pure alcohol would fail to target higher strength products. As set out in the summary of responses published in October 2021, public health groups and economists have cited a link between cheap, high strength spirits (such as vodka) and alcohol-related harms, as the volume of drink needed to reach intoxication is smaller with higher strength drinks.
The Treasury is continuing to engage with other Government departments and interested stakeholders on these reforms. A consultation ran from 27 October 2021 to 30 January 2022, and the Treasury is now analysing the responses. Further updates will be provided in due course.Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of whether the 27 new bands of taxation on wine in the proposed alcohol duty reforms will result in a simplification of the existing alcohol duty system.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government believes that the reforms announced at Autumn Budget 2021 will achieve a duty system that is simpler, fairer and better supports public health in the round.
There will be one duty band for all products between 8.5%-22% ABV based on their alcohol content. This simplifies the existing system by eliminating the different duty rates for still wines, sparkling wines, spirit-based liqueurs and stronger beers, and replacing them with a single rate.
In principle, the Government considers it is right to tax higher strength products a higher rate of duty per unit. Introducing one basic rate per litre of pure alcohol would fail to target higher strength products. As set out in the summary of responses published in October 2021, public health groups and economists have cited a link between cheap, high strength spirits (such as vodka) and alcohol-related harms, as the volume of drink needed to reach intoxication is smaller with higher strength drinks.
The Treasury is continuing to engage with other Government departments and interested stakeholders on these reforms. A consultation ran from 27 October 2021 to 30 January 2022, and the Treasury is now analysing the responses. Further updates will be provided in due course.Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions his Department has had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the impact of the proposed alcohol duty reforms on wine businesses and consumers, as compared to beer or cider drinkers.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government believes that the reforms announced at Autumn Budget 2021 will achieve a duty system that is simpler, fairer and better supports public health in the round.
There will be one duty band for all products between 8.5%-22% ABV based on their alcohol content. This simplifies the existing system by eliminating the different duty rates for still wines, sparkling wines, spirit-based liqueurs and stronger beers, and replacing them with a single rate.
In principle, the Government considers it is right to tax higher strength products a higher rate of duty per unit. Introducing one basic rate per litre of pure alcohol would fail to target higher strength products. As set out in the summary of responses published in October 2021, public health groups and economists have cited a link between cheap, high strength spirits (such as vodka) and alcohol-related harms, as the volume of drink needed to reach intoxication is smaller with higher strength drinks.
The Treasury is continuing to engage with other Government departments and interested stakeholders on these reforms. A consultation ran from 27 October 2021 to 30 January 2022, and the Treasury is now analysing the responses. Further updates will be provided in due course.Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether an Equality Impact Assessment was carried out by his Department on the proposals set out in the Alcohol Duty Review.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The completion and publication of formal Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) documents is not a legal or procedural requirement. However, equality impacts are appropriately assessed and explained to ministers throughout the policymaking process.
Treasury Ministers carefully considered the equalities impacts of the reforms to alcohol duties and had due regard to the public sector equality duty when making decisions.
Further information on the equalities implications of the alcohol duty reforms will be published in a Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) when the policy is final, or near final, in the usual way.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps his Department is taking to support businesses that have not sufficiently recovered from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic to be able to afford repayments on their Bounce Back Loans, even after they have taken advantage of the six month repayment holiday.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
Any business concerned about repayments should get in touch with their lender who will be able to provide support and talk them through their options.
In order to give businesses who have borrowed under the Bounce Back Loan Scheme further support and flexibility in making their repayments, the Chancellor announced “Pay as You Grow” (PAYG) options in September 2020. In addition to the six month full repayment holiday, PAYG gives businesses the option to extend their Bounce Back Loan repayments over ten years, reducing their average monthly repayments on the loan by almost half. Businesses also have the option to move to interest-only payments for periods of up to six months (an option which they can use up to three times). If borrowers want to take advantage of these options, they should notify their lender.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how long on average HMRC takes to make decisions in inheritance tax cases.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
HMRC aims to process 80 per cent of Inheritance Tax (IHT) returns within 15 days and cleared 82.1 per cent within 15 days in the last month. Once HMRC has processed the return, it will issue an IHT calculation for tax due.
Once any IHT due has been paid, notification will be sent by HMRC to the Probate Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland cases, and to the Sheriff Clerk or Commissary Clerk for cases in Scotland. The IHT notification will be linked with the probate application, or confirmation application in Scotland, to enable a grant of probate or confirmation to be issued by them.
Customers will be contacted by HMRC within 12 weeks of them issuing the IHT calculation if further information is required. A small percentage of these IHT returns will require more detailed compliance checks. The length of these compliance checks can vary, and will depend on the complexity of the case.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the potential number of jobs that will be lost in the event that the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is ended before all firms can reopen.
Answered by Jesse Norman
In order to help businesses and employees through the next stage of the pandemic, at Budget, the Government extended the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) until the end of September 2021. This extension is designed to strike the right balance between supporting the economy as it opens up, continuing to provide support and protect incomes, and ensuring incentives are in place to get people back to work as demand returns.
So far, the CJRS has helped to pay the wages of people in 11.5 million jobs across the country, and between the end of January and end of April 2021 1.5 million left the scheme. The Government has been clear, however, that it will not be possible to preserve every job or business, and that it should not stand in the way of the economy adapting, or of people finding new jobs or starting new businesses.
The Government is therefore maintaining its focus on helping people back into work. As part of its comprehensive Plan for Jobs, the Government announced the £2 billion Kickstart scheme which will create hundreds of thousands of new, fully subsidised jobs for young people, and the new three year Restart programme, which will provide intensive and tailored support to over one million unemployed Universal Credit claimants across England and Wales and help them find work.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many (a) promoters and (b) operators of schemes now subject to the Loan Charge have been prosecuted.
Answered by Jesse Norman
A number of individuals are currently under criminal investigation by HMRC for offences linked to schemes subject to the Loan Charge.
In addition to schemes subject to the Loan Charge; since 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance, including offences related to disguised remuneration. These have resulted in over 100 years of custodial sentences. The majority of these convictions relate to promoters.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Stephen Hoey v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs case, whether HMRC plans to accept the decision of that case relating to contactors with pre-2010 open years in respect of owed tax.
Answered by Jesse Norman
HMRC are carefully considering the Upper Tribunal decision of 12 April in the case of Stephen Hoey v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs.