Results 1-20 of 554 for speaker:George Mudie

Tax Avoidance and Evasion (6 May 2009)

George Mudie: It is with some humility that I take part in the debate surrounded by accountants and international aid experts. I was considering whether to contribute to the debate, but I came to support my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). He has done us all a service by obtaining the debate; he has also done a great service, to which other hon. Members have added, in...

Tax Avoidance and Evasion (6 May 2009)

George Mudie: I have some agreement with that; but there is a larger question concerning Governments and financial authorities. Why have those not been willing to intervene? The picture, certainly in the UK, has been that the City has earned so much money and had such a large part in the economy that I do not think any Governments have been willing to stand up against some of the practices that were...

Oral Answers to Questions — Children, Schools and Families: Prisons and Probation (27 Apr 2009) has video

George Mudie: I would have liked to ask the Secretary of State why he thinks locking up an additional 25,000 people—many if not most of them with drug and mental health problems—is a matter to boast about, but I will not, as I must ask him about probation cuts in Leeds and west Yorkshire. He said that this is simply a matter of moving resources to convictions. The Leeds MPs have been approached...

Written Answers — Treasury: Banks: Finance (9 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Statement of 13 October 2008, Official Report, columns 539-472, on financial markets, which institutions have taken up (a) the Government scheme for new lending between banks and (b) the £37 billion made available for bank recapitalisation; and what assessment he has made of the effect of these arrangements on levels of...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 12 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I rise to ask the Economic Secretary if he will tell the Committee the meaning of subsection (2). When certain benefits were moved from the DWP to HMRC, it was clear that the philosophy, ethos and rules of HMRC differed from those of the DWP. Customers were treated differently in terms of money pulled back, appeals and so on. The subsection seems to say that certain moneys in saving gateway...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 12 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: That is a worry. I understand that we have had great trouble with the issue in the Treasury Committee with HMRC. They have caused mayhem and much trauma to people throughout the country. The Economic Secretary’s response is that tax people or collectors—Inland Revenue or whatever they are dressed up as—have no sophistication when it comes to getting the money back. They demand...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 6 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I should like to raise a matter that has been mentioned by the Economic Secretary. It is the example of a person going into a bank and not being allowed to open an account. The Economic Secretary specifically referred to money laundering. When we did an investigation on basic bank accounts, we found that the banks behaved very badly—intolerably—towards those individuals we were...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 6 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I was just on the point of bringing it back to that, Mr. Taylor. I will bring it back to the Department. Faced with that sort of money, its priority should be clawing some of it to give relief to the British taxpayer. On average, the people covered by the Bill will put in £4 per week or £25 a month. If we could confine money laundering to that amount and to that number of people, it...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 6 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: Does that mean that the Minister will look again at the draft regulation that states that a person can be refused an account if they do not satisfy money-laundering legislation?

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 5 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: When we were taking evidence, it was mentioned that the Post Office was very keen on the work and that it was probably looking for a partner in the banks to do a lot of the administration. Perhaps the Economic Secretary can reconcile that. I am surprised at the schizophrenic approach of the Government to the Post Office. The Post Office had profitable passports and driving licence businesses,...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 3 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I wish to raise a point on the spouse’s situation in a household, which we discussed under the previous group of amendments. How will the Economic Secretary indicate eligibility to a spouse in a household where the husband is on income support or jobseeker’s allowance, but the partner or wife is at home not receiving any of the benefits, which would be the straightforward thing to...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 3 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: That is a sensible suggestion that the Economic Secretary will probably add to his list of sensible points that he will make to me. Will such people be sent anything with the eligibility form? For people in a number of households, the first time they will be aware of this scheme is when the form falls on the mat saying that they are eligible to participate in it by virtue of their...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 3 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: This is just a thought on what the Economic Secretary said. Is it beyond the wit of the Department to put something in the Bill—I do not know if it is elsewhere in the Bill, but it could be inserted—that  excludes carers who are not of working age? If that is a specific objection, it can be easily dealt with via a minor amendment.

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 3 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I would not wish my hon. Friend simply to consider that isolated point, but rather to consider the whole amendment. I do not think that he can do one without doing the other. I am sad that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet introduced it as a probing amendment. I think that there will be a widespread feeling in Committee that this is an important amendment for those who save the...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 3 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: The Minister is opposing amendment 39 on the basis that some carers may have high incomes, but in the regulations he has taken care to put a limit of £16,000 on applicants who receive working tax credit and child tax credit. He has put that limit on working tax credit, so why is he not prepared to look at the same mechanism so that it is fair for carers who receive below £16,000,...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 2 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary answered my question, which got caught up in other questions. I know that it was insignificant, but I would still appreciate an answer. I see from the puzzlement on his face that he has forgotten it. It was simply about a person who turns up and says that they have not received an eligibility indication. I am anticipating an answer, but that...

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 2 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: Will the Economic Secretary answer my third question? If an individual turns up and says, “I have not received it,” or, “I did not take it up,” will they be given a new eligibility date or will they be given a notice that relates to their first date?

Public Bill Committee: : Clause 2 (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: I am taking the opportunity to ask a question. I want to follow on from the Economic Secretary’s first contribution about the inefficiencies of HMRC, which we have found on many occasions. If a qualifying individual turns up at their MP’s surgery and says, “I did not receive a notice, I have just heard about it,” will the Department give that individual a fresh date,...

Written Answers — Duchy of Lancaster: Higher Civil Servants: Retirement (3 Feb 2009)

George Mudie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which permanent secretaries have retired since 1997; and which of these have subsequently accepted salaried positions paid from the public purse.

Public Bill Committee: Saving Gateway Accounts Bill (27 Jan 2009)

George Mudie: One of the issues thrown up by the pilot schemes was better-off people recycling their existing savings to get the match payment. The eligibility criteria include jobseekers, so they are not necessarily the people we have been speaking about so far. Do you think that this will be a problem?