UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Margaret Hodge

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when the Government expects to host the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council; what he expects to be on the agenda for that meeting; and what outcomes he expects to achieve from that meeting.

    Sir Alan Duncan

    The annual Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) brings together political leaders from the Overseas Territories and UK Ministers. It will meet this year in London from 1-2 November and will be hosted by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my noble Friend, the Rt Hon. the Baroness Anelay of St Johns DBE.

    An agenda is being developed in partnership with territory leaders and reflects areas key to our shared interests. It is likely to include, but not be limited to, sessions on economic development, good governance and human rights (including child safeguarding), as well as the challenges and opportunities arising from the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. A communiqué will be issued following the conclusion of the JMC. The UK Government will update the House by written ministerial statement afterwards.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether local authorities will be required to seek specific permission from Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government if they wish to provide an exemption from the anti-advocacy clause in a grant agreement.

    Matthew Hancock

    The new clause applies to all central government grants. We expect that exemptions will be rare and these will need to be approved by the relevant Minister.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, 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.

    David Mundell

    The Scotland Office 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 Ministry of Defence

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, 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.

    Mark Lancaster

    Fewer than five employees from PwC, Deloitte, Ernst and Young, KPMG and other consulting firms were seconded to the Ministry of Defence within the last three years. Due to the low numbers involved, a breakdown of companies and job roles has not been provided.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many companies her Department has excluded from public procurement for (a) a conviction for wrongdoing defined by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or (b) grave professional misconduct since January 2015.

    Rory Stewart

    Since January 2015 there have been no instances where DFID Procurement and Commercial Department (PCD) have excluded a company from a Public Procurement for the circumstances cited.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for what reason no formal consultation was issued on the introduction of an anti-advocacy clause into grant agreements.

    Matthew Hancock

    At present there are insufficient checks and balances to make sure that taxpayers funds are not being diverted away from their intended purpose and wasted on political campaigning and political lobbying. This clause has been successfully piloted by the Department for Communities and Local Government for the last year, without any adverse effect on grant recipients’ ability to campaign using their own funds.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

    Mr John Hayes

    To provide the detailed spend and purpose information requested on each individual occasion would require manual intervention and analysis on approximately 30,000 payments across the Department for Transport and its agencies. The number of times an organisation was used will also vary each year as projects can span financial years and this could lead to double counting with the risk that inaccurate information is provided. I am therefore unable to provide the information in the format requested.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, 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.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Department for Education hosted four secondments from KPMG in 2013/14. All four individuals were seconded into external assurance roles in the department’s Education and Funding Agency. There were no secondments from PwC, Deloitte, Ernst and Young or any other consulting firm in 2013/14, and none from any consulting firms in 2014/15 or 2015/16.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

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

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many times HM Revenue and Customs has commenced proceedings to recover unpaid tax claimed as deductible on payments that were subsequently found to involve foreign bribery since 2012.

    Jane Ellison

    HM Revenue and Customs does not record centrally information that may involve foreign bribery when dealing with proceedings to recover unpaid tax.

  • 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.