Tag: Lord Stoddart of Swindon

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the Court of Auditors’ report stating that EU farm projects to improve the environmental sustainability of EU farms are unreasonably costly; and what action they are taking to hold to account those who administer the Common Agricultural Policy.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Of the 28 projects reviewed in the four Member States by the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the only ones viewed as cost effective overall were in England. The ECA found that payment rates in England took account of the wider economic benefits to the farmer which might result from making these investments. They also commented favourably about the high level of integration between these capital payments and multiannual land management activities which leads to better outcomes.

However, some projects reviewed in England were found not to be cost effective. We accept that in some cases the standard payment rates to farmers to help improve environmental sustainability may have been too high. We have reviewed our payment rates for the new Countryside Stewardship scheme. These have been independently verified. We will review standard payment rates again in 2017 to ensure that these types of payments are cost effective overall.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth on 24 February (HL6131) concerning a proposal by the EU to requisition member states’ gas supplies under certain circumstances, whether such a policy would require (1) parliamentary consent, and (2) a referendum.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

There is no suggestion in the proposals that the EU will requisition Member States’ gas supplies. The proposals are at a very early stage and we are engaging with the Commission to ensure that the final version is practical and proportionate. The proposals do not involve any agreement by the UK to transfer power or competence to the EU. These proposals are subject to the usual scrutiny process of both Houses.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to ensure that UK representatives in the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives (1) do not commit the UK to any new policies prior to withdrawal from the EU, and (2) facilitate a swift and effective withdrawal from the EU.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Officials at the UK Permanent Representation act on the basis of Ministerial instructions, which will continue to be the case in the run up to and throughout the period of negotiations to exit the EU. The UK remains a full member of the EU until our leave withdrawal is completed. Consequently, rights and obligations in the EU Treaties and other EU law continue to apply until that time.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 October (HL Deb, col 1176) concerning the review by Lord Strathclyde of the House of Lords powers, whether it is intended that the opinion of peers will be invited.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston):

Lord Strathclyde is being supported in his review by a panel of external experts and a small secretariat of civil servants in the Cabinet Office. The secretariat does not include political advisers. The expert panel comprises Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel; Jacqy Sharpe, a former Clerk in the House of Commons and Clerk to the Joint Committee on Conventions; and Sir Michael Pownall, former Clerk of the Parliaments.

Several reviews have examined the powers of the House of Lords, including the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords (2000) and the Joint Committee on Conventions referenced above (2006).

The review led by Lord Strathclyde is due to consider how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament in the light of the operation of certain conventions. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters; and secondary legislation.

Ministers regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.

Lord Strathclyde will determine the way in which the review is undertaken and the content of his recommendations, including any definitions required. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of the exercise at this stage, but neither Lord Strathclyde nor his panel of experts will be paid a fee. Lord Strathclyde is expected to seek views from a wide range of Parliamentarians, parties and groups in undertaking his review, and has issued a letter to all Parliamentarians inviting their input. He is also seeking views from the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House. Lord Strathclyde will report to the Prime Minister, and the Government will decide how to proceed upon receipt of his recommendations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-12-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 17 November (HL3653), whether they will require all EU advertising notices to include information about the ratio of UK contributions to the EU budget and sums returned by way of grants.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The government has no plans to require all EU advertising notices for Structural and Investment Funds to include information about the ratio of UK contributions to the EU budget and sums returned by way of grants. However we will seek to remove the requirement to display notices in future reforms of the CAP.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total net immigration into the UK between 1997 and 2015.

Lord Bridges of Headley

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-03-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of rising house prices, they intend to make representations to the Bank of England discouraging it from reducing interest rates.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

The UK’s monetary policy framework, set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, gives operational responsibility for monetary policy to the independent Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). Decisions on the use of monetary policy tools are for the judgement of the MPC.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to all ministers of the Crown and senior civil servants to work to facilitate an early and effective withdrawal from the EU.

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

A new Department for Exiting the European Union has been established by the Prime Minister. The Department will lead the UK’s negotiations to leave the European Union and establish the future relationship between the EU and the UK, working closely with the UK’s devolved administrations, Parliament, and a wide range of other interested parties on this approach. Officials and ministers will work closely with other departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Trade and others, to ensure the British public and business interests get the best possible deal when the UK leave the EU.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when work will commence to convert the M4 to a smart motorway from junction 3 to Theale; what the estimated time of completion is; what the estimated final cost of the project is; and what level of traffic disruption is expected during construction.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

From Highways England’s latest information, the M4 junction 3 to 12 scheme is scheduled to start works in 2016/17 and to complete in 2021/22. The latest cost estimate for the scheme is in a range of £614m to £862m with a central estimate of £715m.

The improvements to the M4 are being designed to minimize traffic disruption. The work will be phased but ensure that sections will provide three narrow lanes open to traffic during the daytime and at times of peak flows. Lane closures will take place at night, when traffic flows are lower, for specific tasks such as re-surfacing and gantry and bridge erection. Some complete closures of the M4 will also be required to allow for the demolition of eleven overbridges that are to be replaced as part of this scheme. These will be arranged for periods when flows on the motorway are at their lowest, usually at weekends.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-13.

To ask the Leader of the House whether she will initiate discussions with the usual channels as to the desirability of establishing a general principle whereby items of business with a speakers list of more than 35 members should be tabled over two days, and not on one.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Where the Speakers List for a debate is exceptionally long, it is open to the Usual Channels to consider special arrangements – including an early sitting of the House (as was arranged for the Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill) or adjourning the debate and resuming it on a subsequent day. However, in considering whether to make such arrangements, account must also be taken of members wishing to speak who may not be able to be present on a subsequent day, or for an earlier sitting, and would consequently not be able to participate if such an arrangement were made at short notice. For this reason, case-by-case consideration of the best way forward may serve the House better than a general principle, and so I do not propose to initiate discussions along the lines suggested at this time.