Category: Speeches

Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what the budget was for the out-of-hours taxi service for armed police officers working in the House in each of the last five years; and on how many occasions that service was used in each of those years.

Tom Brake

Prior to 1 April 2016 the House paid for all Metropolitan Police Staff (MPS) required by business to stay until 11pm or later. This included police officers, armed police and civilian security officers. Data is not held according to job role and, therefore, it is not possible to provide the data in the format requested.

Following a change that the MPS put in place to the police officer rosters as well as the new police contract which came into effect on 1 April 2016, police officers, including armed officers, no longer use late night transport paid for by the two Houses.

01/01/2023
Keir Starmer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keir Starmer on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 5 July 2016 to Question 41593, for what reason HS2 Ltd is supporting a two rather than three railhead option at Euston for the transportation of excavated and construction materials.

Andrew Jones

The decision to pursue a two railhead solution was based on a detailed consideration of the environmental, socio-economic and value for money benefits of that option as compared to the value for money disbenefits of the option that included a third railhead. HS2 will, however, continue to seek ways to mitigate the construction programme impacts and to respond to feedback, which will include exploring, during the detailed design phase, additional and/or alternative opportunities to move material by rail including, but not limited to, the third railhead option.

01/01/2023
Rob Marris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rob Marris on 2016-10-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what plans her Department has made to publicise Government support for the (a) African Risk Capacity, (b) Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility and (c) Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative at the Marrakesh Climate Conference, to be held in November 2016.

Rory Stewart

The UK’s support to African Risk Capacity (ARC), the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) and the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) is managed by the Department for International Development (DFID).

In December 2015, every G7 nation set out how they will meet a collective target to reach an additional 400 million people with risk insurance by 2020. The UK has led the way, making excellent progress in delivering on its pledges of support for Climate Risk Insurance in the past year including funding for ARC and PCRAFI. UK Ministers have been invited to participate in side events at the Marrakesh Conference of Parties (COP) meeting to highlight progress with the G7’s InsuResilience climate risk insurance initiative and on ARC.

Currently, just 5% of losses from natural disasters in low-income countries are covered by insurance (against around 40% in developed countries), leaving millions with nothing to rebuild their lives after disaster strikes. UK initiatives give countries and people the tools they need to get themselves back on their feet, which is firmly in our national interest.

01/01/2023
Sadiq Khan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2015-11-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how much the London Olympic council tax precept (a) has raised in each year of its existence and (b) is predicted to raise in the remaining years of its existence.

Mr Marcus Jones

The information requested is not held centrally.

01/01/2023
Lord Beecham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2015-12-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the latest Bank of England figures showing elevated levels of personal indebtedness, what assessment they have made of what is an acceptable and safe level of such borrowing.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

Household debt as a proportion of income has fallen to 144 per cent in Q2 2015, from a peak of 168 per cent in Q1 2008. To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past we have created the independent Financial Policy Committee (FPC) within the Bank of England, to ensure emerging risks and vulnerabilities across the financial system as a whole are identified, monitored and effectively addressed.

01/01/2023
Mark Hendrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2016-01-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many men born in November 1954 resident in Preston parliamentary constituency have been notified of changes in the age at which they will receive the State Pension; and on what date his Department contacted those men with that information.

Justin Tomlinson

We do not have the information requested at this level.

I can confirm that in February 2012, 375,000 letters explaining the State Pension age changes were sent to men and women (across Great Britain and Overseas), with a date of birth in the range 06/10/1954 to 05/04/1955.

01/01/2023

Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) proportion, and (2) volume, of excavated spoil from each of the Thames Tideway Tunnel construction sites will be transported from them by river.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Development Consent Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) requires 100% of the specified materials to be transported by river for construction sites on the Thames foreshore, unless an approved derogation is in place. Derogations could include periods when it is not possible to use river transport due to factors such as river closures, incidents, weather and supply chain failures, and for material not suitable for river transport such as contaminated material that needs specialist disposal or material that is too wet for safe transit without specialist vessels.

The commitment to transportation by river from the construction sites was secured through the River Transport Strategy, which was included in Thames Water’s application for Development Consent for the Tunnel, although it only applies to specific material listed in the Strategy (including excavated material from the main tunnel at main tunnel drive sites and material excavated from the shafts at foreshore sites).

Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (operating as Tideway), the company appointed to design, finance, build and operate the TTT, has estimated the proportion and volume of excavated spoil that will be transported by river from each of the TTT construction foreshore sites (see Table 1 below). The percentages shown for each site demonstrate the anticipated effect of derogations on the amounts of excavated spoil they will be able to transport by river.

However, Tideway and appointed mains works contractors have made commitments to maximise their use of river transport and are therefore working on opportunities to increase the extent of river transport further in liaison with the Local Authorities, Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Transport for London.

Table 1 – Excavated specified material percentage and volume by river transport

SITE	% of all excavated specified material transported by river	Volume to be transported by river (m3)
Putney Bridge Foreshore	90%	14,000
Carnwath Road Riverside	90%	353,400
Cremorne Wharf Depot	90%	9,000
Chelsea Embankment	90%	44,400
Kirtling Street	81%	693,600 *
Heathwall Pumping Station	82%	16,300**
Albert Embankment	90%	56,300
Victoria Embankment	90%	27,900
Blackfriars Bridge	90%	72,100
Chambers Wharf	90%	416,100
King Edward Memorial Park	90%	57,500

*excludes shaft and excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures, due to restricted river frontage

**excludes ‘excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures’, due to site constraints

01/01/2023

Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will give guidance to local authorities about the limits on their powers to engage in political boycotts overseas.

Lord Bridges of Headley

On 17 February, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) published procurement guidance for public authorities that makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.

This new guidance gives no consideration to matters of common law, which is a matter for the courts. However, the guidance makes it clear that local level boycotts can be unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government.

01/01/2023
Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

David Mundell

Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires.

The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

01/01/2023
Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 17 March (HL7118) and 25 April (HL7391), what assessment they have made of (1) the specific steps during the evolution of the peer-review process by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) over the last 10 years that allow specific members of the HFEA Licence Committee to overrule recommendations by the HFEA’s appointed peer reviewers; and (2) the relative impact on the licensing of proposed research over the last 10 years of (a) scrutiny by a team of inspectors, (b) scrutiny by an external, independent peer reviewer and (c) scrutiny by the HFEA’s Licence Committee; how participants in each of those levels of scrutiny have been (i) briefed regarding the impact of their recommendations and (ii) remunerated for their efforts; and how many research licence applications have ultimately been rejected following scrutiny over the last 10 years.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that its Licence Committee acts under delegated power from the Authority to make decisions on licences based on information put before it, which includes recommendations from peer reviewers. Given that they are the decision makers appointed by the HFEA in accordance with its statute, they are able to accept or reject information as appropriate. This therefore includes rejecting or accepting recommendations of peer reviewers. The Committee’s effectiveness is reviewed on an annual basis.

The Licence Committee is made up of authority members who are remunerated on an annual basis. The remuneration figures are publicly available in the HFEA’s annual reports. Peer reviewers receive a fee of £189.67 per review.

Inspectors receive a yearly salary and are not remunerated per inspection, unless they are external inspectors who are used occasionally.

The information regarding research licenses is only held in a readily accessible format from 2011 onwards and before this date can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Since March 2011 there have been no research applications rejected by the Licence Committee. The HFEA works closely with licence applicants to develop their applications and resolve any issues prior to being submitted to the Licence Committee.

01/01/2023