Tag: 2016

  • Biography information for Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Biography information for Lord Mawhinney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Biography information for Lord Mawhinney on 2016-09-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what timeframe is envisaged by the ministerial use of the word shortly” when Parliament seeks to determine when a decision will be (1) taken

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Government remains fully committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects it has set out, including delivering runway capacity on the timetable set out by Sir Howard Davies.

    In the coming weeks the Government will carefully consider all of the evidence and should be in a position to announce a preferred scheme in the autumn.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 19 October 2015 to Question 11881, if he will discuss with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency the reasons for that agency not approving the pilot scheme for bike racks on the front of buses in Bath in 2015.

    Andrew Jones

    The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) rejected the pilot scheme because the design created significant additional hazards from the original bus design. These included both the structure of the bicycle rack when folded and deployed, projections of any bicycle on the rack, and a significant reduction of vision for the driver to the nearside front with a bicycle on the rack. These features were considered to increase significantly the likelihood of accidents and potential severity of pedestrian injury.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Thomas-Symonds on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 18 January 2016 to Question 22400, if he will meet the hon. Member for Torfaen to discuss the case of Norman James.

    Robert Buckland

    I am happy to meet any Honourable Member where appropriate to discuss any issues for which I am accountable to this House. However, in this case I do not believe that a meeting would serve a particular purpose as I am accountable only for the decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service, and the specific allegations raised by Mr James are ones that would be more appropriate for the police to investigate. As I pointed out in my previous answer the CPS has no investigatory powers in this regard.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many officials of his Department have specific policy responsibility for freedom of information.

    Matthew Hancock

    I refer the hon Member to the Cabinet Office organogram: https://data.gov.uk/organogram/cabinet-office.

  • Lord Myners – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Myners – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-04-12.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they have taken, if any, to ensure that the proposed cross-margining arrangements between Eurex and LCH do not subordinate counter-parties in the latter in the event of a failure of Eurex.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    I refer the noble Lord to the investor relations section of the London Stock Exchange Group website, which contains information about the proposed merger, including some information on the combined group’s proposed structure. I also refer the noble Lord to my previous written answer HL7153.

    Once formally notified of the proposed merger, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (as supervisors of the London Stock Exchange Group’s UK-authorised subsidiaries) must assess the proposal from a regulatory standpoint.

    In addition the proposed merger must be approved by competition authorities and is subject to a range of other assessments including those of overseas regulators and shareholders.

    European Regulation No 648/2012 (EMIR) sets out detailed standards on the quality of collateral that a central counterparty (CCP) can accept, and includes a general requirement that the CCP can demonstrate to its supervisor that the form of collateral in question does not present unmanageable risk to the CCP. Furthermore, CCPs are permitted under EMIR to invest their collateral “only in cash or in highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market and credit risk.”

    Any proposals for inter-CCP links would need to be assessed against relevant parts of EMIR by the Bank of England, as supervisor of LCH. EMIR requires that models used to set CCP margin requirements (and any changes to them) are validated by the CCP’s supervisor. EMIR also requires that a CCP wishing to extend its business to additional products or services must obtain the authorisation of its supervisor.

  • Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many harassment warnings each police force in England issued in the most recent financial year for which figures are available.

    Karen Bradley

    The information requested is not collected centrally. The issuance of Harassment Warning Notices, also known as Police Information Notices (PINs), is an operational matter for Chief Constables. Responsibility for the publication of information relating to PINs rests with Chief Constables.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2016-06-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he had with (a) bus operators and (b) local authorities on preventing local authorities outside of London from forming bus companies whilst the Bus Services Bill is under consideration.

    Andrew Jones

    There are only 8 existing municipal bus companies operating services in England, and we are not aware of any current plans to establish new municipal bus companies.

    Government recognises the quality services that existing municipal bus companies provide for passengers, and these existing companies will not be affected. However, it is our view that the commissioning and provision of bus services should be kept separate from each other, particularly as the introduction of new partnership and franchising powers in the Bill could lead to more local authority control and influence of local services.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-09-13.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether public sector net debt will fall by the end of financial year 2016-17 in line with his Department’s published estimates.

    Jane Ellison

    The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) publishes the official forecasts for the level of public sector net debt as a share of gross domestic product. The next OBR forecast will be published in November 2016 in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook document.

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent steps he has taken to promote safety among older drivers; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrew Jones

    The crucial factor for road safety is not a driver’s age, but their physical and mental fitness to drive. The current licensing arrangements support road safety without penalising those older drivers who remain fit and competent to drive.

    When drivers aged 70 and over renew their licences, they must declare any medical condition that could affect their fitness to drive and confirm that they meet the legal eyesight standards. Renewals are at three-yearly intervals and provide a timely reminder for drivers to consider their health in the context of driving.

    Additionally, all drivers have an ongoing duty to inform the DVLA at any time of the onset or worsening of a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive safely. When a driver declares a medical condition, the DVLA will investigate their ongoing fitness to hold a driving licence.

    The Department has provided grant funding to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to develop a dedicated older drivers website that will provide information to drivers and their families on driving safely. The website should go live within the next couple of weeks.

    We will consider the Older Driver forums review of older driver safety when it is published, subject to priorities set out in the British Road Safety Statement.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 4 February 2016 to Question 24499, what discussions his Department plans to have with banks on minimising the cost of loan and other penalties incurred by colleges which merge as part of area reviews.

    Nick Boles

    I refer the hon Member to the answer I gave to Question UIN 24367

    “