UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Margaret Hodge

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many companies have disclosed information to Companies House on persons with significant control in their company as part of their company register since 6 April 2016.

    Margot James

    As at 10 October 2016, the total number of companies that have disclosed information on people with significant control (PSC) for the period 6 April to 10 October is 779,043.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-01-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information his Department holds on the reasons for women choosing to take a test for the BRCA1/2 gene mutation.

    George Freeman

    NHS England offers BRCA testing to individuals with a greater than 10% chance of carrying the mutation, using a model based on the individual’s personal and family history of cancers. Data is not collected centrally on reasons for women choosing to take a test for the BRCA1/2 gene mutation.

    The UK Genetic Testing Network is working with NHS England, the devolved administrations and the Health and Social Care Information Centre to collect and publish United Kingdom-wide data on molecular genetic testing activity. Data collection is expected to have been completed by the summer of 2016 with a full update prepared for publication by the end of the year. However, it is not intended that this will include specific data for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing activity.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many times his Department has used the services of (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what (i) work was undertaken and (ii) the cost to the public purse was on each such occasion.

    Kris Hopkins

    The Department has used the services of (a) PwC, once in the last three financial years. This was for the provision of VAT advice. The cost to the public purse was £1,350. My department has not used the services of any other consultant firms in the last three financial years.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will publish a list of all secondees to her Department from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what the role was of each of those secondees.

    Matt Hancock

    DCMS records show that there were no secondments to the Department from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the register of persons with significant control, what proportion of returns from companies have listed another company rather than an individual as the persons with significant control.

    Margot James

    As at 10 October 2016, the number of accepted filings from companies that have listed another company, rather than an individual as the people with significant control (PSC) is 66,304, equating to 8.4% of the 785,616 total number of accepted filings from companies that have listed PSC details.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-01-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when the UK Genetics Testing Network plans to conduct an evaluation of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

    George Freeman

    NHS England offers BRCA testing to individuals with a greater than 10% chance of carrying the mutation, using a model based on the individual’s personal and family history of cancers. Data is not collected centrally on reasons for women choosing to take a test for the BRCA1/2 gene mutation.

    The UK Genetic Testing Network is working with NHS England, the devolved administrations and the Health and Social Care Information Centre to collect and publish United Kingdom-wide data on molecular genetic testing activity. Data collection is expected to have been completed by the summer of 2016 with a full update prepared for publication by the end of the year. However, it is not intended that this will include specific data for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing activity.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will publish a list of all secondees to his Department from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what the role was of each of those secondees.

    Kris Hopkins

    The Northern Ireland Office has not had any secondees from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, how many times her Department has used the services of (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what (i) work was undertaken and (ii) the cost to the public purse was on each such occasion.

    Matt Hancock

    DCMS has not used the services of (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the register of persons with significant control, what proportion of returns from companies have listed a shell company in an offshore tax haven as the persons with significant control of that company since 6 April 2016.

    Margot James

    Companies House does not hold figures on the number of companies that have registered a shell company as their PSC. Companies can legitimately register a company as their PSC if that company meets the conditions of control, is the first legal entity in a company’s ownership chain and they are subject to their own disclosure requirements. A full explanation of the rules can be found in BEIS guidance.

    “

  • Margaret Hodge – 2022 Speech on UK Companies Involved in Russia

    Margaret Hodge – 2022 Speech on UK Companies Involved in Russia

    The speech made by Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.

    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for his reply. However, after listening to it, I would simply say to him that the Government have constantly talked about taking back control, and if there is one issue on which they should take back control it is this: ensuring that no British company invests in Russia.

    Today is the 286th day of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In February, three days after the war started, BP said it

    “will exit its 19.75% shareholding in Rosneft”,

    Russia’s main oil company. Despite this promise, BP remains one of the largest shareholders. According to the excellent research by Global Witness, it is set to receive £580 million in dividends on the back of bumper profits fuelled by the war. Does the Minister agree with me that it is utterly shameful that a large, publicly listed British company profits from the sale of oil that is funding Putin’s war?

    Does the Minister further agree with the words of Mr Ustenko, President Zelensky’s economic adviser? He wrote to BP and said:

    “This is blood money, pure and simple, inflated profits made from the murder of Ukrainian civilians.”

    BP’s claim that it is locked in as a shareholder is both laughable and easily solved. To put this into perspective, BP’s dividends are equivalent to over one quarter of the total military and humanitarian aid provided by the UK Government to Ukraine.

    Does the Minister agree with Mr Ustenko that BP and any other company still invested in Russia’s fossil fuels must donate the entirety of its wartime profits to the victims of the war? Does he further agree that it is our duty to ensure that companies are not damaging Britain’s national interest? Will this Government therefore work to persuade BP to donate the entirety of its Russian dividends to the reconstruction of Ukraine, and if that fails, will the Minister commit to acting and forcing it to do so through a special windfall tax?

    James Cartlidge

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and pay tribute to her for her long-standing record of holding Governments to account on issues such as sanctions and international finance—I was previously Justice Minister when we had the strategic lawsuits against public participation issue. She has been very active, including across party lines.

    I entirely understand why people feel so strongly on this subject, and I feel strongly too—what Putin has done in Ukraine is appalling—but I am not going to comment on a specific UK company or taxpayer or their commercial decisions. I have set out the range of measures we are taking, and it is important to stress that while we all want companies that have committed to divesting to do so, there are of course issues. I do not say this with specific prejudice to any individual, firm or company, but, for example, should a firm divesting from Russia by selling its shares sell them in such a way that they returned to an individual entity that was sanctioned, there would rightly be condemnation of that. This is not a straightforward process—and I repeat that I do not say that in reference to any specific company.

    I totally agree that we should do everything possible to support the people of Ukraine, and we can be very proud of the enormous effort our country has made. The right hon. Lady rightly talked about our duty, and I believe we have a duty to support Ukraine. We are second only to the United States in the amount of aid we have given to the people of Ukraine, now totalling over £6 million, and, as I understand it, we have been training its soldiers—22,000 of them—since 2015. This country has done its bit in relation to Ukraine. We are proud of that, and of course we want to do more and go further, which is why we work with our partners; that is why only on Monday we announced a decision in partnership with G7 states and Australia in relation to Russian oil across the piece. We have a record of taking decisive action, and in terms of the Treasury, of the most powerful sanctions against Russia on record, which is hitting its economy. We of course have no dispute with the Russian people, who will feel the impact of that, but we are doing everything possible, bar direct military action, to support the people of Ukraine.