Category: Speeches

  • Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burgon on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the risks to financial stability from the European Commission’s proposed regulatory framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation; and if he will make a statement.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government welcomed the development of international and EU standards to revitalise the regulatory framework for securitisation by encouraging the use of simpler and more transparent products. We agree with the Bank of England that a well-functioning and stable securitisation market will benefit financial stability and the wider economy. We support the Basel standards for securitisation, set with the intention of enhancing financial stability, which see features such as tranching and synthetic structures as being legitimate activity. We also support the need for all securitisations to adhere to appropriate rules on transparency and investor due diligence, and that they must be afforded sensibly calibrated capital requirements. Following the financial crisis it was Basel, working with the Financial Stability Board and the International Organization of Securities Commissions which, set the 5 percent risk retention standard.

    In the development and delivery of policy, Treasury Ministers and officials are in regular contact with relevant institutions, regulatory authorities, other governments, industry and other civil society groups including think tanks such as Finance Watch.

  • Natalie McGarry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Natalie McGarry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Natalie McGarry on 2016-09-12.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which reports commissioned by his Department from external bodies between 1 January 2015 and 31 August 2016 have not yet been published; when each report was commissioned for research; what the nature of the research commissioned was; from which external body or individual person the research was commissioned; what the value was of each such piece of research commissioned; on what date each report was received by his Department; for what reasons the research has not yet been published; and when he plans to publish each report.

    Simon Kirby

    The Department does not hold this information centrally. The information requested can only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  • Gill Furniss – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gill Furniss – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gill Furniss on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make it his policy for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to keep records of the (a) number of people who have their tax credits erroneously suspended by Concentrix, (b) number of people who subsequently have those tax credits reinstated and (c) length of time it takes HMRC to subsequently process those payments.

    Jane Ellison

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) collects a wide range of data in order to process a claim. However, this data is not currently held in a form that is accessible for bulk requests without incurring disproportionate costs. For that reason, HMRC is currently focused on resolving outstanding Concentrix cases, but will be preparing analysis which will be made available in due course.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effect of an increase in the universal credit taper rate on (a) work incentives and (b) progression incentives.

    Priti Patel

    The impact on work incentives of the 65% taper was set out in the 2012 Universal Credit (UC) Impact Assessment (see link below).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220177/universal-credit-wr2011-ia.pdf

    “

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people from Pakistan applied for asylum under the detained fast-track procedure for reasons of religious persecution and discrimination in each of the last three years.

    James Brokenshire

    The basis of an individual’s asylum claim is not recorded on Home Office systems. It is not therefore possible to differentiate Pakistani applicants claiming for reasons of religious persecution and discrimination from Pakistani applicants claiming for one or more other reasons in the Detained Fast Track (DFT) or the non-detained process.

    Certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not requested by an applicant. It is applied by the Secretary of State in circumstances where the applicant’s claim is refused and considered to be so lacking in merit as to be clearly unfounded.

    The number of initial certified refusals for Pakistan main asylum applicants, from year ending September 2013 to year ending September 2015, was 604. The Home Office publishes data on asylum applications and decisions on a quarterly and annual basis. The information supplied on certified refusals is based on initial decisions which do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

    No assessment has been made of any difference that might exist between grant rates in respect of Pakistani applicants in the DFT process when it operated, and cases entering the non-detained process at the same time. However, as the DFT process avoided claims involving particular complexity and/or vulnerability, and prioritised cases which appeared to be late or opportunistic, it is to be expected that the DFT would have fewer grants than the non-detained process.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-01-12.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the annual cost to the financial services sector of compliance with money laundering regulations in each of the last five years.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government’s Anti-Money Laundering regime has a clear aim: to make the UK financial system a hostile environment for illicit finances, while minimising the burden on legitimate businesses and reducing the overall burden of regulation.

    The government conducts an impact assessment when updating the Money Laundering Regulations, which were last amended in 2012, and will shortly publish an impact assessment alongside a consultation on the transposition of the EU’s Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. However, the government does not make annual assessments of the cost of compliance and the FCA, as the supervisor of the financial services sector, also does not undertake such assessments on the basis that regulated firms are generally unable to provide costs specifically for compliance with the money laundering regulations given that these costs accrue in relation to systems and controls that manage a variety of operational risks, both relating to financial crime and for other conduct and prudential reasons.

    Bearing in mind to objective of minimizing burdens on legitimate businesses, the Government has launched a review of the impact of the current Anti-Money laundering and terrorist finance regime as part of the Cutting Red Tape Review programme. The Review is specifically seeking evidence on the role of supervisors in that regime, so that regulatory activity can be made as efficient as possible. A report is expected in the coming months and this will inform the work that the government is doing to reform the regime as part of the Action Plan to address weaknesses identified by last year’s National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing risks.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of benchmarking UKTI’s performance against that of other countries’ export agencies.

    Anna Soubry

    There is considerable merit in understanding how our competitors’ export agencies are structured and the services they offer. This is something the Exports Implementation Taskforce, which the Secretary of State chairs, looked at in some depth in developing a whole-of-Government approach to exports. This included, UK Trade & Investment participating in a formal benchmarking exercise by the International Trade Centre.

    Among the key things found from these comparative reviews is that UKTI employs more people than other countries’ export promotion agencies, but deploys less resource on practical support for exporters (such as interim export managers). Learning from this, UKTI is currently developing some small-scale direct practical support services and products to see what might work in the UK.

  • Gareth Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Gareth Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Johnson on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many road accidents have taken place between Junction 2 and Junction 30 of the M25 in each of the last four years.

    Andrew Jones

    The part of the M25 between Junction 2 and Junction 30 is classed as the A282.

    The number of reported personal injury road accidents occurring on the A282 between Junction 2 and 30 for the years 2011 to 2014 are as follows:

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    2011

    0

    5

    39

    44

    2012

    1

    3

    35

    39

    2013

    0

    5

    44

    49

    2014

    0

    3

    41

    44

    Data for 2015 will be available in June 2016 when it is first published. Damage only accidents are not collected by the Department.

  • Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Pursglove on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 23 March 2016 to Question 31332, if he will estimate the cost of collecting information on the nationality of offenders referred to the court.

    Robert Buckland

    The nationality of offenders referred to the court is not collated centrally.

    The Ministry of Justice hold data on foreign nationals held in prisons in England and Wales and publish statistics quarterly. The data does not include those offenders who receive non-custodial sentences.

    To obtain even the limited data which is held would require the consideration of the files in all cases over the past three years where the Court of Appeal increased a sentence of imprisonment previously imposed to ascertain if they contained sufficient information for the data to be requested from the Ministry of Justice.

    The process that would have to be undertaken would incur costs above the current disproportionate cost threshold and would in any event only provide the nationality for a limited number of offenders referred to the court.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Ashworth on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether a discussion about public registers of beneficial ownership is on the agenda for the Anti-Corruption Summit on 12 May 2016.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Summit attendees will discuss a number of important issues, including beneficial ownership.