UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2014

  • Sheila Gilmore – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Sheila Gilmore – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sheila Gilmore on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what visits each of the Ministers in his Department have made since January 2013; and what the purpose of each such visit was.

    Jenny Willott

    Details of Ministers’ overseas visits are published quarterly on the Gov.uk website:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-business-innovation-skills&publication_type=transparency-data

    Information for January to March 2014 will be published shortly.

    Information relating to UK visits can only be provided at disproportionate cost as it is not held centrally.

    “

  • Barry Gardiner – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Barry Gardiner – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if he will provide citations of all the scientific literature used by his Department to establish the weightings of risk factors when establishing the metric for biodiversity offsetting.

    Dan Rogerson

    The current metric was developed for use in the biodiversity offsetting pilots. Defra published a paper at the start of the pilots describing the metric and explaining the rationale behind it. That paper is called “Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots. Technical Paper: the metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England”. Pages 18-19 include the list of references http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/offsetting/documents/110714offsetting-technical-metric.pdf. The time multiplier reflects HM Treasury “Green Book” guidance.

    “

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-06-12.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make it his policy to introduce a clause into private finance initiative contracts to limit the ability of contractors to move offshore.

    Danny Alexander

    The Government is committed to effective anti-avoidance rules to ensure that profits arising on UK activities are not artificially diverted to low tax jurisdictions. At the same time, it needs to ensure that the tax system is competitive for all companies and has set out its plans to make the UK an attractive place to do business while retaining proportionate anti-avoidance protection.

    UK resident PFI contractors regardless of their shareholders’ registered jurisdiction will be charged UK corporation tax on profits earned within the UK. To limit the freedoms properly available to investors would be anti-competitive and contrary to European Union law. These points are not unique to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) but apply equally to non-PFI companies and investors.

  • Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Fuller on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she is taking to work with CDC in delivering early stage investment funds in developing countries to better achieve development goals.

    Lynne Featherstone

    Investment Funds that invest in early-stage businesses can provide risk capital, create jobs and provide access to services such as healthcare, energy, housing, education and sanitation. In December 2012 my Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced the DFID Impact Fund, which is managed by CDC. Through the DFID Impact Fund CDC is investing up to £75 million of DFID’s capital into Funds on a matched basis with other co-investors.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tracey Crouch on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on treating gambling addiction.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Health Surveys for England and Scotland showed a rate of problem gambling of around 0.5% of the adult population, around 200,000 people. The Responsible Gambling Trust expects to distribute £6,292,000 on treatment, education and research in 2014/15 and is funded by the gambling industry and further donations; a full list of funders can be found on their website ( www.responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk ). The Government does not collate details of any expenditure by local authorities or the NHS on problem gambling. DCMS Ministers have regular discussions with their Department of Health colleagues on a range of matters.

    “

  • John Hemming – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John Hemming – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Hemming on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he plans to implement a universal credit sanctions scheme to replace the current jobseeker’s allowance and other sanctions scheme.

    Esther McVey

    In 2012 revised sanctions regimes introduced into Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance moved us towards the Universal Credit system, with the same value of sanction across all benefits and the same duration of sanctions at medium and high levels.

    We continue to monitor sanctions closely and consider opportunities for continuous improvement.

  • Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department will issue a formal response to the National Audit Office report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014.

    Mr Mark Francois

    The Ministry of Defence will respond to the NAO’s report in line with Government practice for such reports.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Chuka Umunna – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the names are of (a) the 16 priority investors selected and (b) the 21 priority investors under initial consideration by the Government in the privatisation of Royal Mail.

    Michael Fallon

    All investors in Royal Mail, whether individuals or institutions, have a legitimate expectation of privacy. It would not be appropriate to disclose the list of institutions that were allocated shares in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) or the names of investors that participated in the investor engagement prior to the IPO.

  • Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the anticipated out-turn cost of AFC Harrogate is for financial year 2014-15; and if he will make a statement.

    Anna Soubry

    Financial data is held from financial year 2007-08 onwards. The Ministry of Defence’s budgetary structure is organised into a number of different Top Level Budget areas. This means that the cost of activities at a single location can often be split between a number of different budgets which are not managed centrally. For example infrastructure costs (including utilities) are managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation through contracts which do not split out the costs for individual units operating on a particular site. Similarly, equipment costs are managed across whole fleets of items by Defence Equipment and Support, and not by individual location. For this reason the full running costs of the Infantry Training Centre and the Army Foundation College cannot be provided in the format requested. However the costs attributable to the Army can be provided from financial year 2007-08 onwards.

    Unit

    2007-08

    2008-09

    2009-10

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    £million

    £million

    £million

    £million

    £million

    £million

    £million

    Army Foundation College

    54.658

    62.078

    58.435

    60.829

    62.199

    63.486

    62.232

    Infantry Training Centre

    83.172

    90.790

    104.702

    81.471

    103.196

    105.274

    93.046

    The Army’s anticipated outturn for the Army Foundation College Harrogate in 2014-15 is £66.204 million, and for Infantry Training Centre Catterick is £90.793 million.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Chuka Umunna – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 16 December 2013, Official Report, column 415, on Royal Mail, over what time period the (a) final price achieved and (b) aftermarket performance of the shares will be assessed under the benchmarks set by the Government.

    Michael Fallon

    We have not set a rigid timetable for the assessment of whether the discretionary payment should be made. As seen in recent days, there is still volatility in Royal Mail’s share price.