UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department made of the annual level of fraud involving the existing one pound coin in order to inform the decision to introduce a new style coin.

    Nicky Morgan

    At Budget the government announced that it will introduce a new and highly secure £1 coin.

    According to Royal Mint estimates counterfeiting of the £1 coin has been on an upwards trend for the past decade. The latest data shows an increase in the counterfeiting rate to 3.04%. This data is based on a survey undertaken in November 2013. Further information can be found at www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/counterfeit-one-pound-coins

    “

  • John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John McDonnell on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will place in the Library and publish the tender and bid for the Child Maintenance Options contract.

    Steve Webb

    Contract documents for the Child Maintenance Options Contract are published on the Contracts Finder website. These documents include the Contract itself, the requirements issued to bidders, and the successful bidder’s response. Contracts Finder is a publicly accessible website where contract documents are published in order to meet government transparency commitments. The specific link to this Contract is: https://online.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/Common/View%20Notice.aspx?site=1000&lang=en&noticeid=1072427&fs=true

    “

  • Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison Seabeck on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the number of armoured fighting vehicles which will be (a) returned to the UK, (d) destroyed or (c) sold by the time of the main withdrawal from Afghanistan; and what the costs associated with each of those categories are to date.

    Mr Mark Francois

    All armoured fighting vehicles deployed to Afghanistan will be returned to the UK. None of these have been destroyed and none are currently due to be sold.

    The information on costs associated with this activity cannot be readily broken out from the wider costs of all equipment and personnel recovery.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what support his Department has provided to companies facing bankruptcy in each of the last three years.

    Jenny Willott

    The Department has a suite of business support packages available to companies whether or not they are facing an insolvency event.

    In exceptional circumstances the Department can work with companies in difficulty to help find solutions to their needs. Any such support is commercially sensitive and is normally a matter between the Department and the company.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Kerry McCarthy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what progress has been made on implementing a regional wildlife enforcement strategy in the Horn of Africa and addressing the illegal trade in shark fins.

    George Eustice

    Countries and stakeholders in the Horn of Africa held a wildlife trafficking workshop in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 3 to 4 October 2012 to discuss the formation of a regional enforcement network to address the illegal wildlife trade. Participants concluded that a Horn of Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network (HAWEN) should be set up. Ethiopia, on behalf of Horn of Africa countries that attended the workshop, submitted a progress report to the Sixteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties (CoP16) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which took place in Bangkok from 3 to 14 March 2013.

    The work of Wildlife Enforcement Networks was welcomed at the recent London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, chaired by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Action XVI in the Declaration adopted at the Conference commits participating governments to strengthening cross‐border and regional co‐operation, through better co‐ordination and full support for regional wildlife law enforcement networks. Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, all of which are members of HAWEN, attended the London Conference.

    The UK Government is wholly opposed to the wasteful and unsustainable practice of shark finning, and the illegal trade in fins. We continue to lead the way in pressing for the adoption of appropriate fisheries and trade controls within bodies such as the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and CITES, in order to ensure any trade in shark products is rooted in sustainable fishing practices. At CoP16 the UK played a critical role in securing increased protection under CITES for five shark species, all of which form an important component of the shark fin trade. This now means that these species will be protected from unmanaged and unsustainable trade in their fins. UK officials continue to work closely with other likeminded countries and non-governmental organisations to help build capacity and ensure that the CITES rules are fully implemented.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2014-06-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment HM Revenue and Customs has made of changes in the extent of (a) fuel smuggling and (b) other organised revenue avoidance schemes in Northern Ireland in the last three years.

    Nicky Morgan

    Estimates of the non UK duty paid market for petrol and diesel fuels in Northern Ireland are published in ‘Measuring Tax Gaps 2012-13′. The non UK duty paid estimate covers both the illicit market and cross border shopping. These estimates cannot be disaggregated into its component parts or by the type of illicit activity e.g. through smuggling or other fraud.

    The excise duty losses due to the non-UK duty paid diesel market for 2010-11 were £110m and for 2011-12 were £120m. The excise duty losses due to the petrol non-UK duty paid market for 2010-11 were £30m and for 2011-12 were £30m. Figures for 2012-13 will be published in the autumn.

    The information on other organised revenue avoidance schemes in Northern Ireland is not available. The figures cannot be disaggregated by country. UK figures are available from “Measuring Tax Gaps 2012-13”.

    The methodologies for producing the estimates are provided in the ‘Methodological Annex for Measuring Tax Gaps 2013′.

    Both documents can be accessed via the following page on the HMRC website:

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps.htm

    “

  • Mark Hendrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Mark Hendrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much the UK contributed towards the funding of the United Nations and International Monetary Fund in (a) 2011, (b) 2012 and (c) 2013.

    Mr David Lidington

    The UK makes numerous contributions to the many different parts of the UN system and UN-led activities. Payments come from a wide range of British Government Departments. Our two largest assessed, or mandatory, payments are for the UN Regular Budget and the UN Peacekeeping Budget.

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) pays the UK’s share of the UN Regular Budget, which covers core UN Secretariat costs and the UN’s political activities. During the last three calendar years the UK made assessed contributions to the UN Regular Budget in US dollars as follows:

    2011 $155.3 million
    2012 $156.1 million
    2013 $132.0 million

    The UN Peacekeeping Budget follows the UN’s financial year (July-June). The UK’s assessed contributions in the last four UN financial years in US dollars were:

    2010-11 $602.8 million
    2011-12 $576.4 million
    2012-13 $477.1 million
    2013-14 $476.6 million

    The UK, typically through the relevant lead Whitehall department in the appropriate field, also makes many other substantial payments into the UN system. For UN specialised agencies these are mostly voluntary contributions, with some assessed contributions e.g. for core costs. Additionally there are many significant voluntary contributions to UN funds and programmes and other UN bodies depending on how they support UK objectives and priorities. The Department for International Development is the largest contributor of voluntary funding, of all British Government Departments.

    The UK does not have an annual subscription to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and does not contribute to its administration costs. These are financed out of the IMF’s own revenue. As per the annual accounts of the National Loan Fund, published to Parliament, the Government’s Quota Subscription and Lending to the IMF at the end of each financial year stood at:

    Quota (£m) Lending (£m) Total (£m)
    31 March 2011 10,581 1,109 11,690
    31 March 2012 10,391 2,030 12,421
    31 March 2013 10,638 2,320 12,958
  • David Lammy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    David Lammy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Lammy on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when his Department received the application from Haringey Council for a Compulsory Purchase Order to be issued for the site of 1-3 Paxton Road, London, N17 0PB.

    Nick Boles

    We are currently considering whether to confirm a Compulsory Purchase Order known as The London Borough of Haringey (Northumberland Development Project) (No 1) submitted by Haringey Council which includes the site of 1-3 Paxton Road. The Order was received in the Department on 5 September 2012.

    This is a complex case. After the close of the inquiry there were matters in respect of which further views of the interested parties were sought and considered. This has delayed the decision in this case.

    We hope to issue the decision on this shortly. It is not appropriate to comment further as to do so may prejudice the Secretary of State’s decision.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-04-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, with reference to the report of Parliamentary Ombudsman into the complaint raised by a constituent of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion regarding her Department’s oversight of CDC Group Investments published in February 2014 and her letter of 19 November 2013 to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion stating that she would reply in full after the publication of the Ombudsman’s report, when she plans to make that full reply.

    Justine Greening

    I have replied to the Hon. Member’s latest correspondence on this issue.

  • Bill Wiggin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Bill Wiggin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bill Wiggin on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps he plans to take to ensure that the people have adequate mobile signal coverage in light of the decision not to proceed with a mast at Fownhope.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Mobile Infrastructure Project can intervene in areas where there is no mobile coverage from any operator, and where the cost of the build of a mast considered alongside the numbers of premises that would benefit from the additional coverage provides value for money. Recent changes in coverage provided by the private sector have proved beneficial to Fownhope, but unfortunately this means that the Mobile Infrastructure Project can no longer go forward with plans for a mast.

    The Mobile Infrastructure Project can only intervene in areas where there is no coverage from any operator, and where an intervention achieves good value for money for the taxpayer. Government is looking at what else can be done to extend coverage.