Skip to main content

Written Parliamentary Questions: 3rd May 2006

Queen's Flight
Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost was of the Queen's Flight in each of the last four financial years; how much of these costs were (a) fixed and (b) variable; and how many miles were flown by the Queen's Flight in each year. (John Hemming)

A:The total cost of the 32 (The Royal) Squadron in each of the last four financial years and the breakdown of these costs into (a) fixed and (b) variable costs are shown in the following table:

Fixed and variable costs for 32 (The Royal) Squadron £ million Financial year Fixed costs Variable costs Total
2002–03 20.2 5.0 25.2
2003–04 14.5 4.8 19.3
2004–05 11.7 4.6 16.3
2005–06 11.4 5.8 17.2

We are not able to provide a figure on how many miles are flown by 32 (The Royal) Squadron as this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. (Don Touhig, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Veterans), Ministry of Defence)


Millennium Projects
Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the millennium projects with a capital cost in excess of £25 million; and what the (a) deficit and (b) surplus was of each project for each financial year since 2000. (John Hemming)

A:Millennium Commission funded projects with a total capital cost of over £25 million are set out in the table.

The Commission monitors projects to satisfy itself that capital assets funded by lottery grant remain in use, and requires projects to provide it with their annual reports and to notify it if they cease operating or become insolvent. To date, three projects out of 223 supported by the Commission have ceased to operate. However, information about the individual performance of each project is not held centrally.

[please follow the link to see the table]

(Richard Caborn, Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…