Tag: Huw Irranca-Davies

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if she will ensure that any exploitation of shale gas in the UK is (a) a substitute for, and not in addition to, imported gas and (b) does not lead to an increase in carbon emissions.

Andrea Leadsom

The shale gas resources beneath Britain have the potential to bolster our energy security and add new sources of home-grown supply to our real diversity of imports.

We are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 and natural gas, the cleanest of fossil fuels, will help us in meeting that target. Reports[1] have shown that the carbon footprint of electricity from UK produced shale gas would likely be significantly less than coal and also lower than imported Liquefied Natural Gas.

This will be especially significant as we displace energy generation from high carbon fuels as coal.

[1] Mackay-Stone report (requested by DECC), Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use, Sept 2013

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether his Department has made an assessment of the effect on UK businesses of the Berry Amendment to US legislation on contract policy.

Anna Soubry

The Government has not carried out any specific assessment of the effect of this amendment on UK businesses to date.

The Berry Amendment is a US Domestic Source Restriction established in the US Code that requires the Federal Government to procure textiles for any defence purpose from US suppliers, unless there is no domestic supplier available. It is possible, occasionally, for UK companies to benefit from partial exemptions to the Berry Amendment.

The trade team within the British Defence Staff in Washington DC can advise UK companies, on a case by case basis, on which opportunities may be considered as an exemption.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment the Government has made of the carbon emissions and air pollution from diesel shipping moored (a) off Enderby Wharf, Greenwich and (b) in other inshore UK waters.

Rory Stewart

Assessment of local air quality is a matter for Local Authorities, following statutory guidance set by central Government and the devolved administrations. Central Government assesses air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at a UK level using the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps the Government is taking to reduce (a) carbon emissions and (b) air pollution from maritime transport and air transport.

Andrew Jones

Given the international nature of the maritime and aviation sectors, the UK works primarily through UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) to ensure strong action on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions at a global level is taken.

We are working with other states in ICAO to agree a global CO₂ standard for aircraft and a global market-based measure to tackle aviation emissions growth, both of which will be subject to important decisions in 2016. We also continue to support the use of regional emissions measures, such as the Aviation EU Emissions Trading Scheme in the absence of a global measure. On air pollution from aviation, we are also working in ICAO to reduce particulate matter emissions, following the organisation’s introduction of a standard to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

With maritime emissions, the UK is working in the IMO towards developing global data collection systems on ships’ CO₂ energy efficiency. Moreover, following the introduction of a new 0.1 per cent sulphur limit on 1 January 2015, there has been a significant reduction in sulphur pollutants emitted by ships operating in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea emission control areas.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-13.

To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to his contribution of 16 September 2015, Official Report, columns 384-5WH, on Alan Richards and Kashif Shabir: SFO, what the threshold is for an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Robert Buckland

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) takes on the most serious or complex fraud cases, including cases of bribery or corruption. In considering whether to take on an investigation, the Director of the SFO applies his Statement of Principle, which includes consideration of:

• whether the apparent criminality undermines UK PLC commercial or financial interests in general and in the City of London in particular,
• whether the actual or potential financial loss involved is high,
• whether actual or potential economic harm is significant,
• whether there is a significant public interest element, and
• whether there is new species of fraud

The SFO also pursues criminals for the financial benefit they have made from their crimes, and assists overseas jurisdictions with their investigations into serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption cases.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-26.

To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 20 January 2016 to Question 22432, by what measure the Director of the Serious Fraud Office judges whether there is a significant public interest element in a case.

Robert Buckland

The Criminal Justice Act 1987 provides that “The Director may investigate any suspected offence which appears to him on reasonable grounds to involve serious or complex fraud.”

Each case is assessed on its own facts and merits.

The Statement of Principle sets out some of the factors that the Director will take into account when considering the matter for investigation. All of these will be considered, and there is no minimum requirement or measure in respect of the different factors.

Each on its own or taken in combination can establish sufficient grounds for the Director to decide that the case is sufficiently large, complex or of wide public interest that it should be dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2016-01-26.

To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 20 January 2016 to Question 22432, what measure the Director of the Serious Fraud Office uses to judge actual or potential economic harm.

Robert Buckland

The Criminal Justice Act 1987 provides that “The Director may investigate any suspected offence which appears to him on reasonable grounds to involve serious or complex fraud.”

Each case is assessed on its own facts and merits.

The Statement of Principle sets out some of the factors that the Director will take into account when considering the matter for investigation. All of these will be considered, and there is no minimum requirement or measure in respect of the different factors.

Each on its own or taken in combination can establish sufficient grounds for the Director to decide that the case is sufficiently large, complex or of wide public interest that it should be dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2014-07-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Government’s position is in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on poultry treated with hyper-chlorinated water entering the UK food chain; and if she will make a statement.

George Eustice

This issue has yet to be discussed in detail within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP negotiations and is unlikely to be until the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) delivers an opinion on the public health, safety and environmental impact of this treatment process. The Government will consider its position when the EFSA opinion becomes available.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2014-07-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Government’s position is in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on meat treated with antibiotics as growth promoters entering the UK food chain; and if she will make a statement.

George Eustice

The use of antibiotics as growth promoters has been banned in the EU since 2006. Third countries permitted to export to the EU are required to have equivalent standards, therefore meat from those countries entering the EU should not contain residues of these substances.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Huw Irranca-Davies on 2014-07-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Government’s position is in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on meat and dairy products derived from cloned animals in the UK food-chain; and if she will make a statement.

George Eustice

The Government believes that the existing EU Novel Food controls on the use of cloned material already ensure adequate protection of Community consumers. The scientific advice we have makes clear that meat and milk from clones or their progeny is just as safe as that produced by more traditional methods. We do not therefore see the need for any further controls at this point.