Category: Speeches

  • Lord Teverson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Teverson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Teverson on 2015-12-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they afforded community energy schemes less than one month’s notice for the implementation of changes to the tax rules, but allowed a phasing out of Enterprise Investment Scheme relief for all generation projects over a longer period.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The purpose of the tax-advantaged venture capital schemes is to encourage investment into smaller, higher risk companies that would otherwise struggle to access the funding they need to develop and grow.

    Changes have been made to the schemes over time to ensure that asset-backed activities, as well as those that benefit from predictable and reliable income streams, do not qualify, since these often represent lower-risk investments that should be able to secure finance without the need for tax relief. For example, different types of energy generation were excluded from the schemes in 2012, 2014 and 2015, due to clear evidence that such investments were particularly low-risk products offering return of capital, and were being explicitly marketed as such.

    Community energy projects in receipt of other government support were not excluded at the time of these previous changes. However, since then the government has become aware of significantly increased interest in the use of community energy for low-risk tax planning purposes. The number of community energy schemes registered as community interest companies (CICs) or community benefit societies has increased from about 5 in 2014 to about 200 by October 2015. The marketing material of these investments suggests that the level of investment risk for community energy, including solar, is comparable to that of activities that were previously excluded.

    The government announced at the Summer Budget 2015 that it would monitor the use of the venture capital schemes by community energy organisations to ensure that there was continued value for money for the taxpayer and that they were not the subject of misuse. The government subsequently announced the exclusion of subsidised renewable energy generation by community energy organisations on 26 October 2015, taking effect for investments made on or after 30 November 2015, providing a notice period of five weeks. At the same time, the government announced the exclusion of activities making reserve energy generating capacity available, also with effect for investments made on or after 30 November 2015.

    The government believes that the notice period given provided a good balance between the provision of notice to potential investors who might wish to take advantage of the tax reliefs provided through the schemes and the financial risk to the Exchequer that a longer notice period would carry.

    To further ensure the venture capital schemes remain well-targeted and deliver value for money, the government announced at Autumn Statement 2015 the exclusion of all remaining energy generation activities from the schemes with effect for investments made on or after 6 April 2016. The new exclusions will apply to both non-renewable and renewable sources of energy generation and apply irrespective of whether a subsidy is received or of the nature of the company carrying on the activities.

  • Harriet Harman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Harriet Harman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Harriet Harman on 2016-01-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on (a) the nature of the Government’s consultation on the proposed Bill of Rights and associated measures and (b) ensuring that that timing does not overlap with the period of the purdah of the Scottish Government or the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament.

    David Mundell

    I meet with Cabinet colleagues and other ministers regularly to discuss a wide range of matters. We are committed to consulting fully on our proposals prior to the introduction of any legislation and we will announce further details in due course.

  • Craig Whittaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Craig Whittaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Craig Whittaker on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has had with the Saudi Arabian government on tackling the spread of Daesh in the Middle East.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We regularly hold discussions with Saudi Arabia about the threat from Daesh. Saudi Arabia has been at the forefront of international efforts to defeat Daesh and was one of the first countries to participate in air strikes against Daesh in Syria. The King and the religious establishment continue clearly and publicly to condemn Daesh and its poisonous ideology, and to emphasise that Daesh do not in any way represent the teachings of Islamic faith.

    The Saudi Arabian Government is working to reduce the threat that religious extremists pose in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. It has a comprehensive set of laws in place to prevent terrorist financing, which it enforces vigorously. We welcome the recent announcement of the creation of the Islamic Military Coalition which, among other things, aims to help Islamic countries to counter the threat from terrorism. Regional and Arab countries are best placed to tackle extremism and confront Daesh on the ground.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of China’s record in observing the agreements made in the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    During his meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on 5 January and in London on 4 February, the Foreign Secretary, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), stressed the importance of respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of all residents of Hong Kong. He also made clear our expectations that the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law for Hong Kong should be respected. During those meetings, China reaffirmed its commitment to the implementation of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

    During the visit to London by Hong Kong Chief Executive C Y Leung on 15 and 16 October 2015, the Foreign Secretary and I also discussed with him the importance of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the need to preserve the rights and freedoms which are enshrined in the Joint Declaration.

    The Foreign Secretary’s most recent six-monthly report to the House, published on 11 February (covering the period 1 July–31 December 2015), urged “the Chinese and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region governments to reassure the people of Hong Kong that the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents will continue to be fully protected, and respected by all, in accordance with the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.” The report also stated that “while we assess that during the reporting period ‘One Country, Two Systems’ has, in very many areas, continued to function well, there have been some areas which have given grounds for concern. These revolve principally around the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Joint Declaration, including academic freedom and the freedom of the press.” We will continue to raise such issues with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities.

    We aim to provide consular assistance to all British citizens, and to dual nationals in their country of other nationality in exceptional circumstances, in line with our consular guidance. We acknowledge that some countries do not accept dual nationality.

    In the case of British citizen Mr Lee Po, the Government continues to call at the highest level on the Chinese Government for his
    immediate return to Hong Kong. Despite formal requests which we continue to make, we have not been granted consular access to Mr Lee. We also stand ready to provide consular assistance to Mr Lee’s family.

    The Government will continue to monitor rights and freedoms in Hong Kong through the Foreign Secretary’s six-monthly reports.

    The full report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-july-to-december-2015

  • Diane Abbott – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Diane Abbott – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diane Abbott on 2016-04-12.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps his Department is taking to reduce tax avoidance and tax crime in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

    Mr David Gauke

    The UK initiated the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project under our G8 Presidency in 2013 to stop multinational enterprises exploiting gaps and mismatches between countries’ tax rules. We were one of the first countries to adopt the recommendations from the project.

    We also called on the OECD to develop a framework for Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting to tax authorities. We’ve implemented the OECD framework and have pushed to go further, with the Chancellor calling for public CbC reporting in the EU and G20. The Commission’s recent proposals are a step in the right direction, and we will give full consideration to them.

    In addition, as a result of our G8 Presidency in 2013, more than 90 countries have agreed to automatically exchange taxpayer financial account information under the Common Reporting Standards, and create company beneficial ownership registers. Under pressure from the UK Government, the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories have signed up to these new standards.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether  the UK is still bound by the provisions of Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, despite having not opted in to the recast Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The UK remains bound by the provisions of the Procedures Directive 2005/85/EC and the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC and not the recast Directives.

  • Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Barker on 2016-07-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Motability Scheme funds cars, powerchairs and mobility scooters but does not extend to cycles.

    Lord Freud

    Motability is an independent charitable organisation wholly responsible for the Motability scheme. Operational decisions, such as what types of vehicles the scheme should provide, are for Motability to make. They can be contacted at Director of Motability, Motability, Warwick House, Roydon Road, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5PX.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he plans to publish the mandate to Health Education England for 2016-17; and whether he plans that that mandate will reference the strategic review of the cancer workforce recommended in the England Cancer Strategy.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Health Education England mandate 2016-17 was published on 13 October 2016. A copy of ‘Delivering high quality, effective, compassionate care: Developing the right people with the right skills and the right values’ is attached.

    The mandate sets Health Education England an objective to continue to take forward the relevant recommendations set out in the Independent Cancer Task Force report, ‘Achieving World Class Cancer Outcomes: a strategy for England 2015 – 2020’, including working with partners to develop a vision for the future shape and skills mix of the workforce required to deliver a modern, holistic patient-centred cancer service.

  • Stephen Hepburn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen Hepburn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hepburn on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many NHS nurses were employed in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 2005.

    Ben Gummer

    The number of hospital and community health services nurses employed in the National Health Service for South Tyneside and the North East region in each year since 2005 is in the attached table. The figures are taken from the NHS annual workforce statistics published by the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

    Figures are only available for recognised NHS geography and therefore no information has been provided for Jarrow constituency.

    The provision of health services in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter so total figures are for England only.

  • Alan Whitehead – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Alan Whitehead – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Whitehead on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if she will specify the comparable operators whose costs would be taken into account prior to the Opex reopeners for the contract for difference relating to Hinkley Point C power station being triggered 15 and 25 years after the first reactor start date.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The terms of the Hinkley Point C Contract for difference (HPC CfD) will set out the mechanism for the Opex reopeners. If my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides to direct the Low Carbon Contracts Company Ltd to offer a CfD to HPC, the terms will be published (with commercially sensitive information removed) once it has been entered in to by the parties. The detailed terms of the HPC CfD are commercially sensitive at this time.