Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label attachment file name title
tabling member	label

Search

43015

registered interest
date	13/03/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many applications to dispose of statutory allotments have been (a) submitted, (b) approved and (c) rejected in each local authority area in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
uin	191956
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>Further to the Allotments Act 1925, applications for consent to dispose of allotment land are submitted to the Department by local councils (parish councils and principal authorities). The table below shows the breakdown of applications since May 2010.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><em>Granted</em></p></td><td><p><em>Withdrawn</em></p></td><td><p><em>Refused</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>May 2010- March 2011</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014-15 to date</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>To place this in context, the Secretary of State granted 34 allotment disposals in 2007, granted 22 in 2008 and granted 18 in 2009, whilst only 2 were declined, which is a greater rate than under this Administration.</p><p>I observe that the rt. hon. Member has been quoted in the media attacking such consents. He would have been wiser however to have undertaken a closer examination of the 68 individual consents granted to the local councils since May 2010.</p><p>The table below provides some context to help explain why there was a reasonable case by the representative local bodies for changing the statutory status of the land.</p><p>In January 2014, my Department published <em>Allotment Disposal Guidance: Safeguards and Alternatives</em> replacing the previous guidance from 2002. The new guidance strengthens allotment protection, as the requirement for waiting lists to be taken into account must now be rigorously applied to all that council's waiting lists, not just the waiting list for the site to be disposed of. This aims to ensure that poorly maintained sites are not used to justify disposal. Ministers will be closely monitoring to ensure that this new guidance is followed.</p><p>Notwithstanding, I have taken the opportunity to analyse these previous cases in the table below. The National Allotment Society was consulted in every case, and nine out of ten decisions were consistent with advice from the National Allotment Society (where advice was given); the remaining cases where the advice diverged related to land not actually in use as allotments, requiring a judgement call on whether it was realistic to bring the land back into productive use.</p><p>Having analysed these approvals, I can note that half of the land disposed was not actually in use as allotments. Moreover, in every case where existing allotment plot holders were displaced, evidence from local authorities indicates that alternative plots were made available to them.</p><p>More new plots were proposed to be created and/or vacant sites proposed to be brought back into use than the number of proposed disposals of in-use allotment plots. Consequently, the statutory disposal process overseen by the Secretary of State since May 2010 should have resulted in an <strong>increase</strong> in allotment provision not a reduction. This reflects this Government's commitment both to supporting local communities grow their own food and to protecting important community assets.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Bristol West answering member printed Stephen Williams grouped question UIN 196310 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1492 label Biography information for Stephen Williams attachment 1 file name 2269 & 2521 Benn - Table.docx title Allotments - Disposal Consents Granted
tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

43124

registered interest
date	13/03/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many exit checks were performed on passengers leaving the UK in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Delyn
tabling member printed	Mr David Hanson
uin	192033
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The number of outbound passengers checked on Home Office systems for each of <br>the last 4 years is as follows:<br><br>2010 - 65 034 675<br>2011- 70 627 943<br>2012 - 67 960 290<br>2013 - 82 311 725<br><br>The figure for 2013 is more than the combined total of exit checks performed <br>between 2005 and 2009 inclusive (74 297 809) and more than twice the 2009 <br>figure (35 283 019).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire
tabling member	533 label Biography information for David Hanson

42710

registered interest
date	12/03/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the potential cost to the public purse of raising the income tax personal allowance for 2014-15 from £10,000, (a) £10,550, (b) £11,000, (c) £11,500, (d) £12,000, (e) £12,500 and (f) £13,000.
tabling member constituency	Bury St Edmunds
tabling member printed	Mr David Ruffley
uin	191880
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p>The cost of raising the income tax personal allowance may be approximated using the “Direct effects of illustrative tax changes” table as published on the internet at the following address:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-effects-of-illustrative-tax-changes" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-effects-of-illustrative-tax-changes</a></p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	133 label Biography information for Mr David Ruffley

42365

registered interest
date	11/03/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the number of properties valued at more than (a) £2 million and (b) £5 million.
tabling member constituency	Dover
tabling member printed	Charlie Elphicke
uin	191427
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p>The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.</p><p> </p><p>Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.</p><p> </p><p>On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean' average of £36,000.”</p><p> </p><p>A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 191429 191430 question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	3971 label Biography information for Charlie Elphicke

42366

registered interest
date	11/03/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the average annual payment required from each property valued above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.
tabling member constituency	Dover
tabling member printed	Charlie Elphicke
uin	191429
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p>The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.</p><p> </p><p>Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.</p><p> </p><p>On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean' average of £36,000.”</p><p> </p><p>A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 191427 191430 question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	3971 label Biography information for Charlie Elphicke

42367

registered interest
date	11/03/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the effect on stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax receipts of the introduction of a so-called mansion tax designed to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.
tabling member constituency	Dover
tabling member printed	Charlie Elphicke
uin	191430
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p>The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.</p><p> </p><p>Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.</p><p> </p><p>On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean' average of £36,000.”</p><p> </p><p>A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South West Hertfordshire answering member printed Mr David Gauke grouped question UIN 191427 191429 question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1529 label Biography information for Mr David Gauke
tabling member	3971 label Biography information for Charlie Elphicke

42610

registered interest
date	11/03/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many migrants from EU countries living in the UK receive child benefit.
tabling member constituency	Romford
tabling member printed	Andrew Rosindell
uin	191453
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p>HMRC are not able to provide the information in the manner requested. HMRC do not record the nationality of the claimant receiving Child Benefit for children living in another member state.</p><p> </p><p>Published Child Benefit statistics provide annual estimates of the number of families and children claiming. The latest available (August 2012) show that there were 7.92 million families, responsible for 13.77 million children and qualifying young people receiving Child Benefit.</p><p>The main purpose of Child Benefit is to support families in the UK. Consequently, the rules generally do not provide for them to be paid in respect of children who live abroad.</p><p> </p><p>Nevertheless, Child Benefit is a family benefit under EC Regulation 883/2004. This regulation protects the social security rights of nationals of all member states of the European economic area, including the UK, and Switzerland when they exercise their rights of free movement under EU law.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC holds information on the number of Child Benefit awards under EC Regulation 883/2004. As at 31 December 2013, there were 20,400 ongoing Child Benefit awards under the EC Regulation in respect of 34.268 children living in another member state.</p><p> </p><p>This is a fall of 3,682 (15.3%) awards in respect of 5,903 (14.7%) fewer children since 31 December 2012.</p><p> </p><p>The breakdown by member state is as follows:</p><p> </p><p>*We have withheld the number where it is fewer than 5, as there is risk that the information could be attributed to an identifiable person, which would prejudice their right to privacy and would therefore be a breach of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Child Benefit</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Country of residence of children</p></td><td><p>Number of awards</p></td><td><p>Number of children</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>Austria</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>37</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Belgium</p></td><td><p>75</p></td><td><p>140</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Bulgaria</p></td><td><p>186</p></td><td><p>245</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Croatia</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cyprus</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Czech Republic</p></td><td><p>124</p></td><td><p>203</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Denmark</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Estonia</p></td><td><p>45</p></td><td><p>65</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Finland</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>France</p></td><td><p>789</p></td><td><p>1429</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Germany</p></td><td><p>283</p></td><td><p>495</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Greece</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>69</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Hungary</p></td><td><p>136</p></td><td><p>196</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Iceland</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Italy</p></td><td><p>156</p></td><td><p>273</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Latvia</p></td><td><p>797</p></td><td><p>1091</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liechtenstein</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lithuania</p></td><td><p>1215</p></td><td><p>1712</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Luxembourg</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Malta</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Norway</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Poland</p></td><td><p>13174</p></td><td><p>22093</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Portugal</p></td><td><p>202</p></td><td><p>309</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Republic of Ireland</p></td><td><p>1231</p></td><td><p>2505</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Romania</p></td><td><p>230</p></td><td><p>392</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Slovakia</p></td><td><p>692</p></td><td><p>1232</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Slovenia</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Spain</p></td><td><p>600</p></td><td><p>1019</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sweden</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>95</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Switzerland</p></td><td><p>77</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>The Netherlands</p></td><td><p>142</p></td><td><p>288</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>Totals</p></td><td><p>20400</p></td><td><p>34268</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As announced in the 2014 Budget, to prevent EEA migrants claiming benefits they are not entitled to, the Government will increase compliance checks to establish whether EEA migrants meet the entitlement conditions to receive Child Benefit</p><p> </p><p>Under domestic law, in order to claim Child Benefit EEA Migrants must be present in the UK, ordinarily resident and have a right to reside in the UK and their children must live in the UK.</p><p> </p><p>The recent changes to migrants' access to benefits announced by the Government sends a strong message that the UK benefit system is not open to abuse, as well as deterring those who may seek residence in the UK primarily to claim benefits.</p><p>Strengthening compliance checks will help prevent EEA migrants from claiming, and continuing to claim, benefits they are not entitled to. Checks will be applied to both new claims and existing awards.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Loughborough answering member printed Nicky Morgan grouped question UIN 181673 183448 184509 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4027 label Biography information for Baroness Morgan of Cotes
tabling member	1447 label Biography information for Andrew Rosindell

42273

registered interest
date	10/03/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who (a) were given a non-custodial sentence and (b) were given their first custodial sentence in each year from 2004 had previously had (i) no criminal convictions, (ii) one criminal conviction, (iii) two criminal convictions, (iv) three criminal convictions, (v) four criminal convictions, (vi) five to 10 criminal convictions, (vii) 11 to 20 criminal convictions, (viii) 21 to 30 criminal convictions, (ix) 31 to 40 criminal convictions, (x) 41 to 50 criminal convictions, (xi) 51 to 75 criminal convictions, (xii) 76 to 100 criminal convictions and (xiii) more than 100 criminal convictions.
tabling member constituency	Hyndburn
tabling member printed	Graham Jones
uin	191341
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p>It has not been possible to obtain this information. I will write to the Honourable member in due course.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	3999 label Biography information for Graham P Jones

42277

registered interest
date	10/03/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 3 March 2014, Official Report, column 641W, on reoffenders, what (a) offence type and (b) sentence length each offender with more than one fixed term recall is serving.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	191309
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p>It has not been possible to obtain this information. I will write to the Honourable member in due course.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

42290

registered interest
date	10/03/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of eligible (a) male and (b) female offenders were recalled on a fixed term recall instead of a standard recall (i) in 2008, (ii) in 2009, (iii) in 2010, (iv) in 2011, (v) in 2012 and (vi) since 3 December 2012.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	191215
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p>It has not been possible to obtain this information. I will write to the Honourable member in due course.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies