Tag: Alan Brown

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the schedule of comparable programme objects in his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, what projects were funded by the PFI Special Grant; and what the total capital cost was of each of those projects.

Greg Hands

The information requested is not held centrally by HM Treasury and the cost of providing it would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the schedule of comparable programme objects in his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, what projects were funded by the revenue support grants; and what the total capital cost was of each of those projects.

Mr Marcus Jones

Local authorities are free to use Revenue Support Grant as they see fit in support of their statutory functions. Whilst the Department collects information on revenue and capital spending by local authorities, it does not ask authorities for information on the particular use to which they put Revenue Support Grant, or any of the other revenue sources available to them.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Answer of 12 October 2015 to Question 10602, on which dates he has held meetings with HM Treasury on the potential effects of a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland in the last year.

David Mundell

There have been a range of meetings on the issues around open cast restoration at Ministerial and Official level. This includes a number of meetings that both myself and colleagues have had with HM Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change over a number of months.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to expenditure on (a) HMRC: Administration, (b) HMRC: Tax and rate collection, (c) HMRC: Valuation Office, and (d) HMRC: Treasury in the schedule of comparable programme objects in his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, (i) how much of that expenditure in which locations was on (A) property and (B) personnel and (ii) how many people in which locations were employed through such expenditure between 2010 and 2015.

Greg Hands

The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, which other possible new nuclear stations have been discussed in addition to the proposed Hinkley Point C station; and what the estimated cost is of a station at each such site.

Andrea Leadsom

Proposals have been put forward by developers to build new nuclear power stations at five other sites listed as potentially suitable in the Nuclear National Policy Statement – Wylfa, Oldbury, Moorside, Sizewell and Bradwell. The proposals are at too early a stage to estimate the cost of each project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the schedule of comparable programme objects in HM Treasury’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, what the total expenditure was on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority between 2010 and 2015; and what the forecast expenditure is in each location on that authority in each of the next five years.

Andrea Leadsom

The total expenditure on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) between 2010 and 2015 was £15,381 million. This was predominantly spent on front-line operations and decommissioning with a small central spend on the NDA itself and on activities such as R&D. The expenditure was across the NDA estate which covers England, Scotland and Wales. However, it should be noted that Sellafield, the UK’s largest, most complex and challenging site accounts for over half of the NDA’s annual budget. There are no nuclear facilities in Northern Ireland.

TheDepartment’s request for future funding as part of the Spending Review contains details of the NDA’s estimates of expenditure in line with its existing plans. This includes focussing on tackling the highest hazards at Sellafield.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what legal advice her Department has received on responding to the challenge in the European Court of Justice to the approval of state aid for the proposed Hinkley nuclear power station.

Andrea Leadsom

DECC has taken and is continuing to take legal advice from internal and external legal advisers on these challenges. The Government is confident that the European Commission’s State aid decision on Hinkley Point C is legally robust and has no reason to believe that the challenges submitted have any merit or would delay the project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to expenditure on (a) DWP Administration, (b) the Government Equalities Office, (c) the Health and Safety Executive, (d) the Work Welfare and Equalities Group and (e) the Working Age Client Group in the schedule of comparable programme objects in HM Treasury’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, (i) how much of that expenditure in which locations was on (A) property and (B) personnel and (ii) how many people in which locations were employed through such expenditure between 2010 and 2015.

Priti Patel

The level of disaggregation is not readily available. DWP Expenditure for the years 2010-11 to 2014-15 is shown in the table below.

DWP, Departmental Expenditure Limit Resource Outturn, £million

	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
DWP	9,152	7,624	7,497	7,615	7,152
Of which:
Health and Safety Executive (net)	203	175	162	155	139
Operational Delivery	1,294	2,487	2,865	2,866	2,191
Employment Programmes	1,814	876	802	1,037	950

More information is available in the Department’s report and accounts which are available at gov.uk. A link to the latest report is provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-annual-report-and-accounts-2014-to-2015

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the potential supplementary income generated from the proposals of a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland.

Damian Hinds

Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 2.260 of the 2015 Budget, what alternative options his Department has considered to address the environmental liabilities associated with unrestored opencast mines in Scotland; and for what reasons each such option was not chosen.

Damian Hinds

Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.