Tag: Philip Davies

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-11-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, which regulations her Department introduced as a result of EU legislation in (a) 2013, (b) 2014 and (c) 2015 to date; which regulations her Department expects to implement as a result of EU legislation in (i) 2016 and (ii) 2017; and what estimate she has made of the cost of each such regulation to the (A) public purse and (B) private sector.

Andrea Leadsom

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to Question 15037:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-11-05/15037/.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-11-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2015 to Question 12657, if he will commission an independent review into the procedures followed by the Tobacco Control policy team within his Department when awarding section 64 grants to Action on Smoking and Health.

Jane Ellison

There is no requirement to commission an independent review as the award of Section 64 grants to Action on Smoking and Health has followed the appropriate policies and procedures applicable to all Section 64 grants.

The assessment of the grant application for funding from Action on Smoking and Health is undertaken by members of the Tobacco Control policy team.

The assessment process is the same for all grants awarded under Section 64 powers. The assessment process uses standard business case criteria and consists of a Strategic Case, Economic Case, Financial Case, Commercial Case and Project Governance.

The assessment is reviewed by the Department’s Voluntary Sector Grants Hub to ensure that the grant proposal is affordable within Departmental budgets; relevant Efficiency Review Group Controls have been considered; the grant has been assessed as delivering value for money and the grant is considered to be appropriate for the Grant funding route rather than procurement.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-11-19.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what factors were considered by HM Revenue and Customs when making its decision to locate its regional hub in Leeds rather than Bradford.

Mr David Gauke

On 12 November, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced the next stage of its ten-year modernisation programme. As part of that, the department demonstrated its long-term commitment to Yorkshire and the Humber by setting out that it would establish a Regional Centre in Leeds.

A number of factors were considered by HMRC when deciding where to locate its new Regional Centres. In addition to cost, it considered local and national transport links, the local labour market, supply of future workforce and the retention of current staff and skills.

HMRC modelled the impact of locating the Regional Centre for Yorkshire and the Humber in both Bradford and Leeds. For both scenarios, it took into account the potential loss of jobs for staff expected to be outside of reasonable daily travel (defined as approximately 1 hour from home to work, though dependent on individual circumstances).

HMRC first shared its transformation plans with its employees 18 months ago. Since then has held more than 2,000 events across the UK, setting out how and why it is changing. The department is committed to continuing to support all of its employees who are affected by these changes.

Staff in Yorkshire attended a number of face-to-face events, providing feedback on the potential location of the regional centre. They will also have the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances in one-to-one meetings with their manager.

This transformation programme will ultimately enable HMRC to deliver better public services at lower cost to the taxpayer. It will generate estate savings of £100 million a year by 2025.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-12-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders were given a fixed term recall for (a) breaching the terms of their licence, (b) committing a further offence, (c) a combination of breaching their licence and reoffending and (d) any other reason in the latest year for which information is available.

Andrew Selous

Any offender who is believed to have committed further offences whilst on licence is liable to be arrested and charged and, if convicted, given a further sentence. If the offence is serious, they can be remanded into custody until trial. Offenders on licence who are charged with further offences are also liable to be recalled, potentially to serve the rest of their sentence in prison, as they will be in breach of the requirement of their licence to be of good behaviour. If the offender is assessed as not presenting a risk of harm to the public they can be assessed as suitable for a shorter, fixed term recall. Those who have been charged with serious sexual or violent offences will not be considered suitable for a fixed term recall.

In 2014, 7,486 determinate sentence offenders were given a fixed term recall for breaching one or more of their licence conditions. Of these, 3,166 had been charged with a further offence. We do not hold centrally data on the total number of these offenders who were subsequently convicted of these further offences.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-01-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what progress has been made on the White Rose Carbon Capture and Storage Project; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

The Government confirmed as part of the 2015 Spending Review that the £1 billion ring-fenced capital budget for the CCS Competition was no longer available.

Following confirmation from both bidders that they will not proceed with their respective projects in the absence of Government capital funding support, Government has taken the decision to close the CCS Competition.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-02-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, how many staff in his Department and non-departmental public bodies receive (a) home to work travel allowance, (b) a car allowance and (c) subsidised health insurance.

Mr Edward Vaizey

There are no staff in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who receive a home to work travel allowance, a car allowance, and/or subsidised health insurance.

The Department does not hold this information for its arm’s length bodies.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-02-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if she will place in the Library copies of the impact assessments produced related to the moratorium on gas fired power stations between 1998 and 2000.

Andrea Leadsom

It has not been possible to find copies of any impact assessments related to the moratorium of gas-fired power generation which was introduced by the Government of the time (with a Department of Trade and Industry lead) to allow an analysis of whether the UK energy market was skewed against coal-fired electricity generation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-03-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 26 February 2016 to Question 26810, what the job titles are of those people in receipt of travel expenses, paid car allowances or subsidised health insurance.

Joseph Johnson

Individual job titles are not held centrally by the BIS HR database. Roles tend to be grouped under work areas e.g. ‘policy delivery’ or ‘human resources’ instead of job titles.

Where we are able to identify job titles, they are very specific roles carried out by individual employees, and therefore it would be possible to identify personal information of these employees. This information has therefore not been released.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-03-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in what circumstances the Independent Police Complaints Commission can refer a case back to the police.

Mike Penning

Police forces are required to refer (i) all Death and Serious Injury (DSI) matters and (ii) complaints and conduct matters that meet certain criteria, as set out in regulations, to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC assesses each referral on a case-by-case basis, by considering the seriousness of the matter and any relevant public interest factors. The IPCC may decide that an investigation is not required, in which case the matter will be referred back to the police force to decide what action to take. Alternatively, if the IPCC decides that the matter requires investigation, the IPCC must make a determination to undertake an independent investigation, an investigation under the supervision or management of the IPCC, or can refer back to the police force to investigate.

In 2013 the Home Secretary announced a commitment to transfer resources to the IPCC to enable it to expand to undertake all serious and sensitive matters involving the police. The IPCC is currently undertaking a change programme to deliver this expansion. In 2013/14 the IPCC commenced 109 independent investigations whilst 241 were opened in 2014/15. The IPCC is on course to meet its target of delivering between 400 and 700 independent investigations in 2015/16.

Reforms in the Policing and Crime Bill will build on this, enhancing the overall level of independence across IPCC investigations by removing managed and supervised investigations. Where the IPCC decides not to refer a matter back to the police force for investigation, it must undertake an independent investigation unless it considers that a directed investigation, a new form of investigation established by the Bill, is more appropriate.

Information on how many cases referred to the IPCC have been referred back to the police for investigation is available on the IPCC’s website for the majority of the last six years (link: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/archive-corporate-reports-and-plans). I will ask the IPCC to write to the Honourable Member, providing fuller information, and will ask for this response to be made available in the House Library.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-03-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will make an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of introducing an import tax on coal and gas imported from outside the EU; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry

The UK is part of the EU Single market which has a common EU tariff policy which applies to all imports. Import tariffs are set by the EU. The UK has no legal ability to set its own import tariffs.

EU tariffs rates form part of our World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments and apply to all WTO member countries. Under WTO rules increases to EU tariffs above the level committed to, or ‘bound’ rate, require us to give compensation to affected countries (in the form of lower tariffs on other products). Any potential benefit of an import tariff increase may therefore harm another UK sector.

The latest version of the EU tariff was published in Official Journal to the EU L285 on 30 October 2015 (Council implementing Regulation EU No 1101/2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC|) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff). Chapter 27 covers the import of fuel including coal and gas. The import of coal has a 0% import duty and the import of gas ranges from 0% to 8% depending on the type and usage.

WTO rules, do however allow countries to impose import tariffs when goods are being “dumped” e.g. sold on our market at below manufacturing cost price. If there is evidence that imports of coal and gas are being dumped the European Commission could propose imposing anti-dumping duties.