Category: Speeches

  • Lord Moynihan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Moynihan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Moynihan on 2016-03-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Cabinet Office Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee last met; what is its membership; what is the budget of the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Unit; and what has been the tangible output of its work in delivering a sports legacy from the London Olympic and Paralympic Games since 2012.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Government and its Arm’s Length Bodies have helped deliver a strong sporting legacy from London 2012, including 1.65 million more people playing sport regularly than when London won the bid for the Games back in 2005; over £1 billion over 4 years invested in youth and community sport; £150 million a year for primary school sport in the 2013-14 academic year and the following two years; and a 13% increase in funding for elite sport for the four years leading to Rio 2016.

    The Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee met during the last parliament and was not reconstituted in this parliament. Its membership covered a wide variety of government departments, reflecting the breadth of the government and Mayor of London’s legacy plans. The responsibilities and the budget of the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Unit now fall within the DCMS sport team.

  • Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl McCartney on 2016-04-28.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what estimate the Government has made of the number of migrants from (a) EEA member states and (b) EEA countries projected to migrate to the UK in each year from 2016 to 2030.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Baroness Young of Hornsey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Young of Hornsey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Young of Hornsey on 2016-06-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the financial implications of changing taxation requirements to replace permanent branding on corporate uniforms with non-permanent branding.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    There is an income tax deduction available where an employer provides corporate uniforms, or where an employee must purchase such clothing. To be considered a uniform clothing must meet certain criteria. The clothing must be: specialised, recognisable as a uniform and intended to identify its wearer as having a particular occupation. These requirements ensure that the tax deduction is used as intended.

    No assessment has been made of how many corporate uniforms in the UK could be diverted from landfill or incineration if these tax rules were changed. No assessment has been made of the financial implications of changing these taxation requirements.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage local authorities to consider minor and major planning applications with equal priority.

    Gavin Barwell

    Every planning application should be determined in a timely and efficient manner, irrespective of the scale of the proposed development. We took powers in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to enable us to extend to non-major planning applications the successful performance regime for major applications that has been running, which has seen the proportion of major applications determined on time rising from 57 per cent in July to September 2012, the quarter in which the performance regime was first announced, to 82 per cent in the most recent quarter. We have also announced our intention to tighten the Planning Guarantee for minor applications, with the applicant being eligible for a refund of their fee after 13 weeks instead of the current 26 weeks.

  • David Crausby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Crausby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Crausby on 2016-10-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make it his policy to restore compensation for war widows who remarried between 1973 and 2005.

    Mark Lancaster

    There are currently no plans to restore War Widows Pensions to those who had surrendered it on re-marriage or cohabitation, however, I remain sympathetic to the circumstances of this group of widows and have asked Ministry of Defence officials to continue to consider potential options given the financial and legal considerations we are faced with.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to monitor the elections to the Mexican Supreme Court.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    We are following developments in the appointment of new judges to the Mexican Supreme Court closely, and note the commentary on the need for well qualified, independent candidates to be put forward to the Senate.

  • Richard Arkless – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    Richard Arkless – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Arkless on 2015-11-30.

    To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration has been given to moving to digital voting in the House.

    Tom Brake

    The Commission has given no formal consideration to a move to digital voting in the House. Its responsibility in this matter is limited to any financial or staffing implications of any change to the present system, were a change to be agreed by the House.

    In January 2015 the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy recommended that the House should move to record votes using Members’ security passes but retain the tradition of walking through division lobbies. The House has not yet been invited to respond to this recommendation. House officials have undertaken some preparatory studies in the event of the House deciding to endorse this proposal. Members wishing to pursue the issue can seek a debate via the Backbench Business Committee or raise it with the Procedure Committee. It would also be open to Ministers to bring forward proposals.

    Accurate recording of divisions and timely publication of division lists are critical business activities of the House of Commons. The House Service has therefore been investigating means of electronic recording of divisions since October 2014, with a view to improving the timely publication of division lists, making division data more accessible to the public and easier to analyse, and improving accuracy. A trial was held in the House in March 2015 in which seven divisions were recorded in part by division clerks on tablet devices. Full implementation of tablet recording of divisions is expected to take place early in 2016. In the meantime, any divisions held under the new English votes for English laws procedure will be recorded on tablet devices, because the tablets can generate the results required under the ‘double-majority’ system. Electronic recording of votes by division clerks will not in itself alter the requirement for Members to vote by walking through the lobbies.

  • Lord Lingfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Lingfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lingfield on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the review of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, charities in receipt of less than £25,000 per annum in grants from public funds will be subject to freedom of information requests.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The Government will announce its intentions about the development of the Freedom of Information Act once it has received and considered the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information’s recommendations.

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he plans to announce a decision on the planning appeal submitted by the Route 39 free school in Torridge.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    This decision has now been announced. The announcement was made on Thursday 18 February.

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many applicants to the Future Teaching Scholars programme to date have been (a) women and (b) men.

    Nick Gibb

    To date we have received applications from 27 women and 23 men. We remain confident that we will secure 110 scholars by the end of summer 2016.