The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-06-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, when she expects the Bonfield Review of consumer advice, protection standards and enforcement for energy efficiency and renewable energy to be published.
Andrea Leadsom
The Bonfield Review is an independent review, being led by Peter Bonfield. We expect the review to be published in the near future and will announce the date in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Norman Lamb on 2016-09-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what role his Department played in drafting the Government’s childhood obesity plan.
Margot James
I refer the Rt hon Member to the reply I gave to Question UIN 44973.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-10-21.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent progress his Department has made on its work on an open address register.
Chris Skidmore
The 2016 Budget announced that government would develop options for an authoritative address register that is open and freely available. It is critical that we make wider use of more precise address data and ensure it is frequently updated to unlock opportunities for innovation.
Since the Budget, officials from across government have been exploring a range of potential options for the creation of an Open Address Register and I will look to update the House once this work has been concluded.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Smith of Basildon on 2015-11-09.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 October (HL Deb, col 1176), whether Lord Strathclyde’s review of the powers of the House of Lords will define financial measure”.”
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 Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2015-12-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the annual £210 million ring-fenced funding for adult community education is to be continued; and if not, what level of funding such community education will receive in future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We have protected the core adult skills participation budget in cash terms, at £1.5 billion. Further details on what the settlement means for the Further Education sector is set out in the Skills Funding Letter.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2016-01-13.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Ofwat concerning the profits made by water companies between 2010 and 2015.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Government has regular discussions with Ofwat about its strategic priorities and objectives for regulation of the water sector.
Ofwat sets price controls independently of Government. This independence is crucial to ensure stable economic regulation which keeps investment costs down and customer bills low.
In 2009, Ofwat set price controls for the period from 2010 to 2015. During this period water companies benefited from several factors outside their control, including low taxation and low borrowing costs. In March 2013, Ofwat challenged companies to share gains with their customers. The then Secretary of State wrote to companies in November 2013 in support of Ofwat’s drive. As a result, companies absorbed costs and provided water bill discounts worth £435 million over this period.
In 2014, Ofwat delivered a tough price review which means that bills will fall by around 5% in real terms from 2015 to 2020.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-02-08.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the performance of the Education Funding Agency on the case of Harperbury Free School; and what the cost to the public purse of that school has been to date.
Edward Timpson
I have every confidence in the performance of the Education Funding Agency on this project.
The combined capital and revenue cost of the project to date is £1,919,000.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the minimum number of hours off-duty is that his Department uses to define a day off for a junior doctor.
Ben Gummer
Neither the current contract nor the new contract define a day off. Both define a minimum rest period between shifts of 11 hours and a minimum break between defined periods of prolonged work of 48 hours. Further minimum rest periods, as set out in the existing Working Time Regulations, will also apply. The new contract will reduce the number of consecutive night shifts after which a 48 hour break must be taken from seven to four, the number of consecutive long day shifts from seven to five, the number of consecutive late evening shifts from 12 to four and the number of consecutive shorter shifts from 12 to eight. The improvements are part of the around 90% of the new contract that was agreed with the British Medical Association and that make the new contract much safer than the current one.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2016-03-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he expects the UK-China human rights dialogue to take place.
Mr Hugo Swire
The next round of the annual UK-China Human Rights Dialogue will take place in London. The date is still being agreed with the Chinese Government.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which countries the UK has negotiated agreements on the exchange of tax information which (a) are in compliance with the OECD’s standard for such agreements and (b) provide for the automatic exchange of tax information since the OECD’s standard was released in July 2014.
Mr David Gauke
The UK has exchange of tax information agreements with 142 different jurisdictions, through Double Taxation Agreements and Tax Information Exchange Agreements, and also as party to the OECD/Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the ‘Multilateral Convention’).
A list of the international agreements the UK is party to can be found on Gov.uk under ‘Tax Treaties’, and details of which jurisdictions have entered the Multilateral Convention into force alongside the UK can be found on the OECD website.
Of the 142 international tax agreements the UK is party to, only the following 12 do not meet the international standard for exchange of information on request:
Egypt
Fiji
Gambia
Israel
Jamaica
Kenya
Namibia
Oman
Papua new Guinea
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Zimbabwe
That international standard does not apply to automatic exchange. The standard for automatic exchange the question refers to (as published by the OECD in July 2014) is the Common Reporting Standard, the globally acceptable standard on automatic exchange of information with respect of financial accounts information.
The means of ensuring this standard was through a common Competent Authority Agreement, which supplements the international tax agreement allowing for exchange of tax information, rather than being an international tax agreement itself. There is no standard for automatic exchange in international tax agreements; just whether the agreement allows for it or not.
It is the UK policy to interpret international tax agreements to allow automatic exchange even where not expressly stated, with the exception of cases where the exchange of information provision clearly uses restrictive wording that would preclude such an exchange.