Author: admin

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential number of jobs created in (a) Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency and (b) Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock constituency of the implementation of a carbon price support exemption scheme.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • George Kerevan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    George Kerevan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Kerevan on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of where the compensating permanent deficit or deficits will appear in the national income accounts as a result of his Department sustaining a permanent budget surplus.

    Harriett Baldwin

    In the UK National Accounts, the income and expenditure of different sectors (household, corporate, public sector, and the rest of the world) imply paths for each sector’s net lending or borrowing. By identity, these must sum to zero as for each borrower there must be a lender.

    If the public sector were to run a budget surplus, there would be an offsetting change in the net lending position of one of the household, corporate and the rest of the world sectors. More information is available in the latest OBR Economic and Fiscal Forecast (July 2015). A link to the information is provided below:

    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/economic-fiscal-outlook-july-2015/

  • George Kerevan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    George Kerevan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Kerevan on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of allegations of unusual volumes of short selling of RBS shares in the period immediately before the August 2015 share offering by UKFI.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Chancellor and UK Financial Investments (UKFI) take the allegations of unusual volumes of short selling of RBS shares very seriously. UKFI have analysed the volume of shares on loan in the period immediately before the August 2015 share offering.They have concluded that the increase in the volume of shares on loan ahead of the sale was not material, and did not impact on the final price achieved.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what meetings were held with third parties who objected to proposals to a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the proposal by the RSPB for the creation of a Restoration Investment Fund in areas with orphaned open-cast mines.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what carbon price support exemption schemes are in operation in the UK coal industry.

    Damian Hinds

    The only carbon price support (CPS) exemption scheme in operation in the UK coal industry is the exemption for coal slurry.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions his Department has held with the Coal Authority and the Department for Energy and Climate Change on proposals for a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons his Department determined that addressing liabilities relating to unrestored coal mines in Scotland was a devolved matter.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department assessed the merits of a carbon price support exemption scheme for (a) Scotland and (b) the UK.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what advice was provided to his Department by independent environmental bodies on proposals for a carbon price support exemption scheme; and what alternative such proposals were made by those bodies.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.