The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average time was for a decision to be made on a claim for pneumoconiosis between 2010 and 2015.
Justin Tomlinson
The information requested is not available and could 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, what decommissioning provision is allowed within the proposed strike rate of £92.50/MWh for the electricity from the proposed Hinkley Point C power station.
Andrea Leadsom
The decommissioning costs for the Hinkley Point C power station, together with the waste management and waste disposal costs, account for £2-£3/MWh of the strike price.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the effect of expenditure on UK Trade and Investment on the level of foreign direct investment in (a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency between 2010 and 2015.
Anna Soubry
During the 2010/11-2014/15 period, UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) recorded 8160 successful Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) projects won in the UK; of which 284 investments were in Scotland.
UKTI and its regional/local partners were involved in supporting 6415 of the total number of UK investments.
Breaking down the Scottish successes further, 5 landed in Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
UKTI works as one team with Scottish Government and all other regional and local partners, to promote and support inward investment into all parts of the UK.
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 UK Trade and Investment between 2010 and 2015.
Anna Soubry
UK Trade and Investment expenditure is published annually in the UKTI Annual Report and Accounts which are available in the libraries of the House.
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 25th 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 25th November to coincide with the Spending Review announcement.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department assessed the merits of a carbon price support exemption scheme for (a) Scotland and (b) the UK.
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, what advice was provided to his Department by independent environmental bodies on proposals for a carbon price support exemption scheme; and what alternative such proposals were made by those bodies.
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.