Tag: Caroline Lucas

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, when he plans to publish the next Carbon Plan.

Mr Nick Hurd

We are engaging with a wide range of stakeholders and other government departments in order to meet the shared challenge of moving to a low carbon economy. The Emissions Reduction Plan will set out how we will meet our carbon budgets through the 2020s (the period covering the fourth and fifth carbon budgets).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether any of the contractors undertaking construction or management of the building works on High Speed 2 will be subject to public Freedom of Information requests.

Andrew Jones

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) if a contractor or another party holds information on behalf of the public authority then it is considered to be held by the public authority and therefore subject to the FOIA.

HS2 Ltd have a clause in all of their contracts which states that information that contractors hold as part of the HS2 contract is subject to the FOIA.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-11-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the cost per megawatt hour of electricity is from the (a) Hunterston B, (b) Heysham 1&2, (c) Torness, (d) Hatlepool, (e) Sizewell, (f) Dungeness B and (g) Hinkley Point C power stations.

Andrea Leadsom

As EDF own Hunterston B, Heysham 1 and 2, Torness, Hartlepool, Sizewell and Dungeness, the cost per megawatt hour is a matter for them. Under the proposed Contract for Difference for Hinkley Point C, the Strike Price (in 2012 figures) is £92.50/MWh fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index.If Sizewell C receives a CFD (or equivalent), or advances to first nuclear island concrete pour for the project, prior to the commissioning of the first reactor at Hinkley point C, the Strike Price for Hinkley Point C will be reduced to £89.50/MWh. This reduction is provided for on the assumption that EDF will be able to share ‘first of a kind’ costs of EPR reactors across Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C sites.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-11-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what mechanisms are in place to ensure transparency of the ownership of limited partnerships; what plans he has to (a) improve such transparency and (b) ensure that such partnerships are not set up for money laundering purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry

To improve transparency, the Department has established a publicly accessible central register of people with significant control (PSC register) through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

The PSC register will be an easily accessible single source of information about the ultimate owners and controllers of UK companies, Limited Liability Partnerships and Societas Europeae. From June 2016, these corporate entities will be required to make their beneficial ownership information publically available through the UK register of companies.

It is already a legal requirement that the name of each of the partners of limited partnerships be submitted to Companies House on registration. This information is available to the public free of charge through the new Companies House beta service. Companies House also works collaboratively with other government departments and agencies to tackle crime and fraud, including money laundering.

We are currently considering the scope of the UK register to ensure we comply with the European Union’s Fourth Money Laundering Directive, which requires corporate and other legal entities to obtain and hold beneficial ownership information.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-12-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the recommendations of HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ thematic report on Behaviour management and restraint of children in custody, published in November 2015.

Andrew Selous

Restraint is only be used as a last resort, when young people are putting their own safety and the safety of others at risk.

The recent report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons welcomed our new arrangements, which are designed to limit the use of physical restraint on young people in custody as far as possible.

The report does raise some concerns over how the new system is operating and we will carefully consider its recommendations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-12-14.

To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to the Answer of 10 June 2015 to Question 702, how much has been paid to political candidates (a) in each region, (b) of each political party, (c) of each gender and (d) of each ethnic group from the Access to Elected Office Fund to date.

Caroline Dinenage

The number of people who have applied to the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund is in the table below:

Financial Year	Number of applicants (some applicants made more than one application)
2012/13	27
2013/14	34
2014/15	48

The total amount claimed by successful applicants was £271,260 (out of awards totalling £418,733)

An evaluation of the pilot fund is currently being undertaken and will be published in due course. An announcement regarding the future of the fund is anticipated early in 2016.

The information on regional breakdown of expenditure and the diversity of candidates can be found in the tables below:

Region (location of election seat)	Amount claimed and paid (£)
East Midlands	1,099
East of England	480
Greater London	89,399
North East England	4,382
North West England	20,567
South East England	69,474
South West England	21,260
West Midlands	20,281
Yorkshire and Humberside	17,882
Total (rounded)	271,260

Political Party	Amount claimed and paid (£)
Conservative	32,361
Democracy 2015	350
Green	5,791
Labour	120,846
Liberal Democrat	32,601
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition	276
UKIP	53,236
Independent	25,798
Total (rounded)	271,260

Gender	Amount claimed and paid (£)
Male	139,524
Female	131,736
Total	271,260

Ethnic Group	Amount claimed and paid (£)
White; all backgrounds	218,117
Mixed ethnic origin	1,348
Asian; all backgrounds	26,680
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British	22,977
Other ethnic group	350
Prefer not to say	1,788
Total	271,260

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-01-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to page 86 of her Department’s publication, Review of the Feed-in Tariffs Scheme: Government response, published in December 2015, what work her Department is undertaking to better understand the whole-system impacts of different electricity technologies; when she plans to complete and publish such work; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

DECC recognises the importance of considering the whole system impacts (both costs and benefits) of different electricity technologies when formulating future government policy, since it is a crucial element in delivering secure, clean and affordable energy to consumers.

In order to continue to improve its evidence base in this area and inform future policy developments, DECC has commissioned a project on the Whole System Impacts of Electricity Generation Technologies on the electricity system. This project will improve DECC’s understanding of what these system costs are (for example, the impact of electricity technologies on wider system balancing actions and networks requirements), as well as improve DECC’s modelling capability to quantify these system costs and their dynamics. The project covers both conventional and low-carbon large- and small-scale technologies.

This project is currently ongoing and given the complex modelling involved, it requires a rigorous quality assurance process to ensure the analysis is robust. A report will be published in due course.

Once this project is completed, DECC will be able to better quantify system costs to inform policy decisions. Any future policy development, such as future renewable support, will be informed by the improved evidence base developed through this project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-01-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether the entering into force of the agreement between the UK and EDF to proceed with Hinkley Point C is conditional on the Flamanville successfully demonstrating capability of operation; what recent conversations her Department has had with EDF about the findings of the French Nuclear Safety Authority on tests on the Flamanville EPR reactor vessel head and bottom and the implications for her policies on new nuclear power; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

My rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s final decision on the Contract for Difference and associated agreements for Hinkley Point C is not dependent on developments at Flamanville. The UK has its own independent nuclear regulatory regime which has assessed the reactor design proposed for use at Hinkley Point and will continue to regulate the project through construction, operation and decommissioning. As part of this, the Office for Nuclear Regulation has said that it expects EDF to apply any relevant lessons learned from Flamanville and improve its design to ensure the delivery of high standards of nuclear safety for its new nuclear power plants in the UK. DECC officials are in regular contact with EDF about both projects.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-02-09.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his policy is on the proposal from the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU, in order to have one set of rules for calculating the taxable profits of companies operating in more than one member state; and if he will press for the introduction of such a CCCTB with other EU member states in the Council.

Mr David Gauke

The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) has a keen interest in tax, and hence put forward certain proposals. However, the Commission has the sole power of initiative in relation to legislative measures. Tax files are to be agreed by unanimity at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN). The European Parliament’s role in this process in not formal, and purely consultative.

The term tax haven is often used as shorthand for low or zero tax jurisdictions. However, low tax rates are not by themselves harmful and the UK supports fair tax competition. The UK is working with other Member States in the EU Code of Conduct Group to identify harmful tax regimes and will continue to take strong action against aggressive avoidance and evasion.

The UK and other Member States have not yet seen any proposals from the European Commission or the European Parliament on public country-by-country reporting (CbCR). The Commission is due to publish an Impact Assessment on public CbCR shortly, and we are interested in the results of their analysis. The UK will carefully consider any proposals put forward by the Commission.

The UK played a leading role in encouraging other countries and jurisdictions to sign up to international tax transparency agreements during its G8 presidency in 2013. Thanks in large part to the UK’s continuing leadership on this agenda, over 90 countries have now committed to exchange information on offshore accounts, beginning in 2017 or 2018. The UK also initiated the international work on CbCR and was the first country to formally commit to implementing the OECD model for CbCR, with legislation in the Finance Act 2015. We support the proposal to amend the Directive on Administrative Co-operation to require all EU Member States to adopt and exchange the OECD CbCR template.

The European Commission intends to publish a revised proposal for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) later this year. The Government will wait to see the detail of the Commission’s proposal, including a robust impact assessment, before finalising its position. However, we have stated that the UK will not sign up to anything that undermines our tax sovereignty.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-02-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many requests were made by his Department’s Child Maintenance Group to HM Revenue and Customs for information relating to a non-resident parent’s unearned income in each year since the commencement of the 2012 statutory child maintenance scheme.

Priti Patel

The Information requested is not routinely recorded for management information purposes and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

CMS has direct access to income information held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) which allows the Child Maintenance Service to capture a much wider range of income types received by non-resident parents. Therefore the definition of income within variations under the 2012 scheme of maintenance has been opened to deal with almost all additional sources of income captured by self-assessment. This is referred to as “unearned income” and captures income derived from property, savings and investments (including dividends), and other miscellaneous incomes.