Tag: Lord Inglewood

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-10-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the average number of British citizens who are in other EU countries, either temporarily or permanently, at any one time.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    United Nation migration statistics from 2015 estimate that there are around 1.2 million British nationals living in the EU.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Inglewood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2015-11-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the social security benefits budget last had a clean and unqualified audit report from the NAO.

    Lord Freud

    It is the DWP consolidated resource account (not budget) that is audited each year by NAO.

    In his certificate of the 2014/15 accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General stated to the House of Commons that, in his opinion, the Department’s financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s affairs as at 31 March 2015.

    The consolidated resource account has been given a qualified regularity opinion in each of the years that it has been audited (since 1999-00) because of the level of fraud and error in certain benefits.

    The qualification is due to material amounts of fraud & error in benefit expenditure. In the 14/15 accounts this was estimated at 1.9% of benefit expenditure, the eventual outturn was 1.8%.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Forestry Commission refuses to allow the use of air rifles by experienced, trained, and insured volunteers as part of an integrated programme for grey squirrel control.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Landowners are free to choose any legal method to control grey squirrels on their own land and to choose the methods they believe to be most effective and appropriate in any location. However, Forestry Commission England currently considers that free shooting has limited effectiveness in controlling grey squirrel populations, with better, more effective methods often available. In addition, the majority of the public forest estate has unrestricted public access and public safety is of paramount importance. For these reasons the Commission does not allow the shooting of grey squirrels by volunteers on its land. Volunteers are, nevertheless, an essential part of controlling grey squirrels and control methodologies continue to be developed and evaluated against the criteria of efficacy, safety and animal welfare. The Commission is additionally encouraging improvements to other methods of control including trapping, as well as assessing the findings of a recent study from Ireland which suggested that an increased pine marten population may result in a reduced grey squirrel population.

    The Commission is seriously concerned about the negative impact of grey squirrel populations on woodland and specifically on native woodland. The Government is committed to pursuing co-ordinated action at a national level and in conjunction with partners through the Squirrel Accord, to which both Defra and Forestry Commission England are signatories. Work is continuing to improve the effectiveness of control methods; the structure of grants has been changed to support grey squirrel control and substantial work continues with partners to support our red squirrel populations, including through the control of grey squirrels. The Commission is open to further engagement with national and local organisations as well as landowners sharing our commitment to grey squirrel control for the protection of woodland and red squirrel populations.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-02-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people in England have been killed or injured during grey squirrel control with guns during the last decade.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    This information is not held centrally. I can confirm that the Forestry Commission in England does not have any record of anyone being killed or injured during grey squirrel control with guns on the Public Forest Estate in the last decade. However, it does not hold any record of incidents elsewhere.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-02-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 1 February (HL5225) about grey squirrel control, what is their definition of free shooting”.”

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Government does not have a standard definition for the free-shooting of grey squirrels. However, Forestry Commission England considers free-shooting of grey squirrels to be where they are shot in any circumstances other than after having been live trapped, lured into or located in a pre-prepared area with, for example, a ground feeding station and high seat to facilitate shooting with a safe backstop.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many grey squirrels were culled on the public estate in each Forest District of England and Wales in each of the last three years; and how many were culled by (1) trapping, and (2) shooting, in each of the years in each of the Districts.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Forestry Commission does not hold records of the numbers of squirrels killed on the public forest estate in England. The Forestry Commission ceased to operate in Wales on 1 April 2013 with the creation of Natural Resources Wales and we do not hold any information on grey squirrel culling on the Welsh Government woodland estate.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Forestry Commission permits forms of shooting on any of its land in circumstances which fall within its definition of free shooting”.”

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Forestry Commission only associates the term free-shooting with the control of grey squirrels for the protection of red squirrel populations and the reduction of damage to timber crops, not any other wildlife management activity.

    There may be occasions where free-shooting takes place by the holders of Game Shooting Leases or by its own wildlife rangers. There may also be free-shooting of grey squirrels carried out where there are retained sporting rights over which the Forestry Commission does not exercise any direct control.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-05-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of leaving the EU on businesses that trade with Europe, and how those businesses may communicate that impact.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with my noble Friend.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-05-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what calculation they have made of the effect of leaving the EU single market on total UK tax revenue.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Treasury has published rigorous and objective analysis on the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives in April 2016, and on the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU in May 2016.

    From the short-run analysis, in 2017-18 the deterioration in receipts is £17.9 billion in the ‘shock scenario’ and is larger at £31.9 billion in the ‘severe shock scenario’.

    The long-term economic analysis assesses the continued membership of the EU against three different alternatives. The analysis shows that after 15 years, even with savings from reduced contributions to the EU, receipts would be £20 billion a year lower in the central estimate of the European Economic Area alternative, £36 billion a year lower for the negotiated bilateral agreement alternative and £45 billion a year lower for the World Trade Organization alternative. These figures are expressed in terms of 2015 GDP in 2015 prices.

  • Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Lord Inglewood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Inglewood on 2016-07-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether holding a second referendum is an essential constitutional precondition to invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    Article 50 explicitly recognises that a Member State may decide to withdraw “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. It is for the Member State concerned to determine what those constitutional requirements are. The Government does not consider that a second referendum is necessary, or required to invoke Article 50.