The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Elliott on 2016-02-02.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the proportion of tax to income paid by (a) an Uber taxi driver, (b) a black cab driver and (c) a mini cab driver.
Mr David Gauke
All self-employed taxi drivers are subject to the same rules when calculating trading profits chargeable to tax.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Monaghan on 2016-02-29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many applications for consent have been determined by the Marine Management Organisation since 2010.
George Eustice
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) database was established in April 2011 and accurate data for marine licence applications determined by the MMO are limited to post 1 April 2011. However, I can confirm that since April 2011:
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-03-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a national deposit return scheme as part of the Government’s litter strategy.
Rory Stewart
As part of its Litter Strategy, published in 2014, the Scottish Government announced that it had commissioned a feasibility study and a call for evidence investigating the implementation of a deposit return system for single use drink containers in Scotland. This valuable work, published last year, highlighted significant uncertainties regarding the impacts and benefits that a deposit return system would have, notably regarding costs, environmental quality and littering, and existing waste collection systems. The Scottish Government is doing further work on the topic and we will consider any new evidence arising from this in the course of developing our own National Litter Strategy for England.
Defra analysed the costs and benefits of implementing a deposit return system for single use drink containers as part of the 2011 Review of Waste Policy in England, and to seek views in the 2012 consultation on higher packaging recycling targets. This work showed that introducing a deposit return system may increase recycling and reduce litter, but might impose additional costs on businesses, consumers and local authorities (which would lose revenue from recycling). However, we are lacking evidence to appropriately quantify these benefits and costs. The current approach has driven a significant increase in packaging waste recycling rates, from less than 47% in 2003 to nearly 65% in 2013.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-04-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the range of prices charged by fertility units within the NHS in England is to provide (a) a cycle of IVF and (b) a cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Jane Ellison
The level of provision of infertility treatment, as for all health services they commission, is decided by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and will take into account the needs of the population overall. The CCG’s decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services will vary in response to local needs.
CCGs have a legal duty to have regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. As such, NHS England expects that all those involved in commissioning infertility treatment services to be fully aware of the importance of having regard to the NICE fertility guidelines.
Following a meeting with Fertility Fairness in December 2015, officials from the Department and NHS England are considering options for addressing variation in the prices that CCGs are currently paying for in vitro fertilisation treatment.
Information about the costs of individual treatments is not collected centrally.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-06-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will provide additional resources to the Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership to assist them in the key role envisioned for them in the independent report, Tees Valley: opportunity unlimited, published on 7 June 2016.
James Wharton
Officials in the Cities and Local Growth Unit will continue to work with the Tees Valley to implement their current devolution deal – including additional resources of £15 million per year, and over £100 million in already agreed growth deals. Tees Valley Combined Authority is already putting in place plans for implementing Lord Heseltine’s report. Government is committed to work coherently with local leaders to support the economic growth opportunities that have been identified.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2016-09-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he plans to respond to his Department’s consultation on the Hendy Report, published in January 2016.
Paul Maynard
Following the conclusion of my Department’s consultation, the Secretary of State has accepted the report by Sir Peter Hendy on the replanning of Network Rail’s Investment Programme.
No-one has put forward a better overall plan for how to deliver the programme than the plan that Sir Peter has proposed.
The programme of railway upgrades will continue to be subject to ongoing assessment and investment decisions to ensure that maximum value is derived for passengers and taxpayers
A report summarising the responses made to the consultation will be published later in the year and a copy will be placed in both libraries of the house.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Campbell on 2016-10-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether it is his Department’s policy that compensation for subsidence damage under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 is in line with the Code of Practice which was based upon the Land Compensation Act 1973.
Jesse Norman
The Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the Coal Industry Act 1994 set out the duties on the Coal Authority in relation to coal mining subsidence and includes provisions for purchase of properties and home loss payments. Principles relating to compensation reflect similar principles referred to in other codes of practice relating to compulsory purchase procedures instigated by other public bodies. However, the Coal Authority has no compulsory purchase rights relating to subsidence. There are, however, differences in the minimum and maximum degree of compensation paid.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 2015-11-09.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether evidence sessions will be held in the course of Lord Strathclyde’s review of the powers of the House of Lords, and whether those sessions will be public.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston):
Lord Strathclyde is being supported in his review by a panel of external experts and a small secretariat of civil servants in the Cabinet Office. The secretariat does not include political advisers. The expert panel comprises Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel; Jacqy Sharpe, a former Clerk in the House of Commons and Clerk to the Joint Committee on Conventions; and Sir Michael Pownall, former Clerk of the Parliaments.
Several reviews have examined the powers of the House of Lords, including the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords (2000) and the Joint Committee on Conventions referenced above (2006).
The review led by Lord Strathclyde is due to consider how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament in the light of the operation of certain conventions. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters; and secondary legislation.
Ministers regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.
Lord Strathclyde will determine the way in which the review is undertaken and the content of his recommendations, including any definitions required. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of the exercise at this stage, but neither Lord Strathclyde nor his panel of experts will be paid a fee. Lord Strathclyde is expected to seek views from a wide range of Parliamentarians, parties and groups in undertaking his review, and has issued a letter to all Parliamentarians inviting their input. He is also seeking views from the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House. Lord Strathclyde will report to the Prime Minister, and the Government will decide how to proceed upon receipt of his recommendations.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rennard on 2015-12-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to limit spending in particular constituencies during a general election campaign to prevent any imbalance in the funding available to candidates unduly affecting election outcomes.
Lord Bridges of Headley
Existing electoral law limits spending.The Representation of the People Act 1983 sets limits for spending by candidates, and for those campaigning for or against a candidate, at a General Election. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets constituency limits for spending by third party campaigners at General Elections.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Massey of Darwen on 2016-01-13.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why pupils not attending school due to health needs are not entitled to the pupil premium.
Lord Nash
This Government is determined that all children, regardless of their circumstances, should receive a good education. Where a child of compulsory school age would not receive suitable education due to health needs, local authorities have a duty to ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place. Local authorities are funded to make these arrangements through their high needs budgets.
The pupil premium is additional funding that recognises the further barriers to educational achievement faced by disadvantaged pupils. Disadvantaged pupils who are unable to attend school because of health needs continue to attract the pupil premium. The premium is paid to all state funded schools with eligible pupils, including special schools, special academies, pupil referral units and alternative provision academies. Where eligible pupils are recorded on the alternative provision census as receiving other forms of alternative provision then the pupil premium is paid to the local authority. Information about pupil premium funding arrangements can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings
“