Tag: Alan Brown

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, 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 UKAEA-Decommissioning between 2010 and 2015; and what the forecast expenditure in which locations is on such decommissioning in each of the next five years.

Joseph Johnson

The data in the HM Treasury publication Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales an Northern Ireland Assembly, Statement of Funding Policywas compiled in 2010 using a different financial database system to the one subsequently in use by BIS and its delivery partners. This means that the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which is responsible for the UK fusion programme, has provided the following information.

Year	Legacy costs1	JET decommissioning costs1, 5
2010/11	8,279	29
2011/12	10,798	37
2012/13	7,356	43
2013/14	6,814 plus 1,050 capital2	62
2014/15	6,024 plus 1,554 capital2	42
2015/16	8,315 (est.) plus 6,010 capital2 (est.)	166 (est.)
2016/17	See note 3	214 (est.)
2017/18	See note 3	943 (est.)
2018/19	See note 3	16,3064 (est.)
2019/20	See note 3	28,251 (est.)

Notes

1. Figures in £000s.

2. Capital costs cover new facilities on the Culham site such as the Materials Research Facility and RACE (Remote Applications in Challenging Environments) funded partly through the National Nuclear Users Facility and Oxford City Deal.

3. Subject to next Spending Review.

4. The costs rise substantially in 2018/19 due to the expected closure of JET in 2018 and start of decommissioning. However this date is under review with the European Commission with an extension proposed.

5. These costs are undiscounted and form part of the total undiscounted liability for decommissioning JET of £256,544k as stated in the 2014/15 UKAEA Annual Report and Accounts.

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

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much under each cost heading was spent on the House of Lords Appointments Commission between 2010 and 2015; and how many times that Commission met during that period.

Matthew Hancock

Expenditure figures for the House of Lords Appointment Commission are published in its annual reports which are available on its website athttp://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk.

Details about the Commission’s meetings are also available on its website.

“

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to principle 7 in paragraph 3.2 of his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, which areas of self-financed expenditure of the Scottish Parliament are included in that principle.

Greg Hands

Principle 3.2.7, as set out in the 2010 edition of the Statement of Funding Policy, encompassed business rates income and council tax revenues collected by Scottish local authorities.

The Statement of Funding Policy is reviewed and updated periodically. The devolved administrations have been informed that the Treasury expects to publish a revised version on 25^th November to coincide with the Spending Review announcement.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 2.25 of his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, when he expects the statement of funding policy to be next updated.

Greg Hands

Principle 3.2.7, as set out in the 2010 edition of the Statement of Funding Policy, encompassed business rates income and council tax revenues collected by Scottish local authorities.

The Statement of Funding Policy is reviewed and updated periodically. The devolved administrations have been informed that the Treasury expects to publish a revised version on 25^th November to coincide with the Spending Review announcement.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to principle 7 in paragraph 3.2 of his Department’s publication, Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy, published in October 2010, whether he plans to include that principle in an updated statement of funding policy.

Greg Hands

Principle 3.2.7, as set out in the 2010 edition of the Statement of Funding Policy, encompassed business rates income and council tax revenues collected by Scottish local authorities.

The Statement of Funding Policy is reviewed and updated periodically. The devolved administrations have been informed that the Treasury expects to publish a revised version on 25^th November to coincide with the Spending Review announcement.

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 the total cost was of royal travel between May 2010 and May 2015.

Greg Hands

Information relating to the total cost of Royal travel is readily available in the annual financial reports. They include a full breakdown of costs for Royal Travel for each of the years in question.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/AnnualFinancialReports/Annualfinancialreports.aspx

The Statement of Funding Policy no longer contains information on Royal Travel costs.

“

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 2015-09-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much has accrued to the public purse in tax receipts from the extraction of coal from open cast mines over the period 1995 to 2015.

Damian Hinds

There are no taxes levied specifically on open cast coal mining. This activity is subject to the UK’s general taxation regimes such as VAT and Corporation Tax. However it is not possible to say how much revenue these taxes raise from open cast mines, as the number of companies involved is below the Government’s threshold for disclosing tax liabilities.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of (a) the merits and (b) compatibility with European requirements of a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland; and by what process evaluation of that scheme was conducted.

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.