Category: Speeches

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps he is taking to ensure that people who are not eligible to vote in the EU referendum and who have received ballot papers in error are not able to use those ballot papers.

    John Penrose

    The EU referendum will be overseen by the Chief Counting Officer, chair of the independent Electoral Commission, who is responsible for making sure the referendum is held in accordance with the legislation governing the conduct of the poll. The Electoral Commission has recently issued a statement setting out the actions that have been taken to address an issue with elections software used by a number of local authorities in England and Wales. They will ensure that any postal votes which have been issued to electors who are not eligible to vote in the referendum will be cancelled and none of these electors will be shown as eligable on the electoral register to be used at polling stations on the 23rd June.

  • Tom Elliott – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tom Elliott – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Elliott on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that there is not a backlog of visa applications after the UK leaves the EU.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    There have been no changes in the requirements for European nationals entering or currently residing in the UK, nor of British citizens elsewhere in the EU. The precise way in which these requirements may change following the UK’s exit from the EU is yet to be determined.

    The UK’s visa operation is resourced to meet demand, and we will ensure that any operational implications of the UK’s exit from the EU are fully factored into business planning.

  • Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Green on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with energy suppliers on tariffs for customers who do not elect to pay for services online.

    Jesse Norman

    Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers will be meeting energy supply companies in due course to discuss a range of issues.

    Under the terms of the supply licence, suppliers are required to offer customers a wide choice of payment methods, and this must include payment by cash and payment in advance through a prepayment meter.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Daniel Zeichner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of funding special guide dogs for children with autism.

    Alistair Burt

    There has been no assessment made centrally of this; it would be for individual charities to explore the potential for assistance dogs to support children and young people with autism.

  • Nicola Blackwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Nicola Blackwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicola Blackwood on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Attorney General, how much of the Law Officers’ Departments funding allocated in the Spending Review 2015 will be for research and development expenditure up to 2020.

    Robert Buckland

    Spending Review 2015 set out settlements for departments and showed how the government will deliver on its priorities, eliminate the deficit, and deliver security and opportunity for working people.

    Final decisions on internal departmental funding allocations for future years, including for research and development, have not yet been made.

  • John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Redwood on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on seating capacity of the Great Western Main Line electrification project.

    Claire Perry

    The electrification programme will help dramatically increase seating capacity on the Great Western Main Line, with the Intercity Express Programme providing up to 40% more seats in the morning peak (compared to the HST fleet it replaces) in to Paddington and the new AT300s increasing seating capacity on Newbury to London services.

  • John Pugh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    John Pugh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Pugh on 2016-01-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many people were hired by Ofsted on a consultancy basis in 2015; and what the overall cost was of their employment.

    Nick Gibb

    These are matters for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw. I have asked him to write to you and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.

  • Chris Heaton-Harris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Chris Heaton-Harris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Heaton-Harris on 2016-02-24.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to create a fiscal surplus by the end of this Parliament.

    Greg Hands

    The government has made significant progress on deficit reduction to date – the deficit has more than halved as a share of GDP from the post-war peak we inherited in 2009-10. The government will reduce public sector net borrowing at the same average rate as the previous Parliament. But with warnings of a weaker outlook for the economy, we cannot be complacent in thinking the job is done and we must continue with the plan to return the public finances to a more sustainable position.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of the contribution of the UK’s membership of the EU to the protection of the UK’s critical national information infrastructure from cyber-attack.

    Matthew Hancock

    Cyber threats transcend borders and so international cooperation is crucial to keep the UK safe. Whilst protection of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is a national security issue, and therefore outside the authority of the European Commission, we work closely with the EU to promote the UK’s vision of a free, open, peaceful and secure cyber space internationally. Our partnership with EU countries help improve our ability to manage cyber security risks, through initiatives likes CERT-CERT cooperation and the work of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security, which promotes best practice and knowledge on cyber security. As a result, we are safer, stronger, and a better off as a member of the EU.

  • Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing, what assessment they have made of the impact of implementing the provisions relating to joint audit on the creation of a more competitive market and limiting market dominance by the largest professional services networks.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government does intend to implement provisions relating to increased tendering as part of the implementation of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive. This is in line with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

    The provision on joint audit in the EU Regulation would act as an exemption from having to retender with the frequency envisaged by the CMA. The government consulted on the implementation of the audit directive including this option, and concluded the option should not be taken up.

    Joint audit is not a practice followed in the UK, though it is expressly permitted by the Companies and legislation on some other entities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted on whether to take up this derogation. In response to our discussion document in December 2014 on auditor regulation, only 4 of 25 respondents supported its implementation.

    It is unclear that increased joint audit would encourage competition. The option in the EU Regulation could result in prolonged audit engagements (up to 24 years) and fewer changes in auditor. This would be contrary to the objective of the CMA and the Regulation, which is to increase retendering and rotation of auditors not less.

    The CMA considered the impact of joint audits on competition and concluded that promoting joint audits would have little effect on barriers to entry, expansion and selection. The CMA’s conclusions were based on views provided by a range of stakeholders. The CMA was not able to quantify the potential cost of imposing joint audits, but did state that they believed that across the market the costs would be potentially significant. They state that a lot of weight was placed on the views of investors, who were almost universally opposed to joint audits on the grounds of additional costs and risks to audit quality.