Author: admin

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 9 June (HL351), what consideration they are giving to (1) the issuing of guidance on the establishment of children’s social care trusts so that lessons can be learned from earlier experiences of doing so; and (2) the regulatory implications for such bodies if more local authorities establish them given the regulatory arrangements in place for the outsourcing of adult social care.

    Lord Nash

    The evaluations of Doncaster and Slough Children’s Services Trusts are underway and will provide learning from the experiences of establishing those organisations. There are no new regulatory implications for trusts. Where a trust is created to carry out children’s social care services on behalf of an authority, the statutory responsibility for those services remains with that authority. Ofsted will continue to inspect children’s social care services whether they are delivered by a local authority or by a trust.

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 9 June (HL353), whether Birmingham City Council could continue with an updated Improvement Plan after 2017 if a new Ofsted inspection reveals satisfactory improvements since the last inspection in March 2014.

    Lord Nash

    If Ofsted find that Birmingham City Council have improved to the point where their children’s social care services are no longer inadequate, they will be removed from Department for Education intervention. At this point, the Department will continue to provide supervision and support to ensure that improvements remain on track.

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 9 June (HL354), how long it took to set up the Trusts in Kingston-upon-Thames and Slough; what were the costs of setting up those Trusts; and who bore those costs.

    Lord Nash

    Slough Borough Council was issued with a Statutory Direction in October 2014, which required the Council to cooperate in setting up a Trust. The Trust became operational in October 2015. The Department for Education met the costs of setting up the trust, which came to £3.3m.

    Achieving for Children is a community interest company owned and established by the councils of Kingston-Upon-Thames and Richmond. The Department does not hold information about the total costs of setting up this company but Achieving for Children received grant funding of £500,000 from the Department of Communities and Local Government and £105,605 of professional advice and support from the Cabinet Office Mutuals Support Programme.

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the current Commissioner for Birmingham City Council’s children’s social care services started work; how long his appointment is for; what progress reports he has provided to the Secretary of State; and whether those reports are in the public domain.

    Lord Nash

    Andrew Christie was appointed Commissioner for children’s social care services in Birmingham in December 2015. The statutory Direction that appointed him lasts until September 2016. He reports regularly to the Secretary of State. These reports are not in the public domain.

  • Lord Empey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Empey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the devolved administrations are permitted to re-allocate funds provided by HM Treasury for capital expenditure purposes for resource expenditure purposes.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    Devolved administrations may not switch provision from Capital to Resource, except where bespoke arrangements have been agreed with Treasury ministers.

    The annual ‘Consolidated Budgeting Guidance’, published by the Treasury, sets out the budgeting framework for expenditure control for devolved administrations.

  • Lord Stevenson of Balmacara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Stevenson of Balmacara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take action in response to the recent report by Local Equal Excellent that children with a Pakistani background sitting the 11-plus entrance examination in Buckinghamshire are only half as likely as their white classmates to secure a place at one of the grammar schools in that area.

    Lord Nash

    The School Admissions Code requires school admission arrangements to be ‘fair, clear and objective’. It further requires that ‘admission authorities must ensure that their arrangements will not disadvantage unfairly, either directly or indirectly, a child from a particular social or racial group’.

    Those who consider an admission policy, including a selection test, to breach the School Admissions Code can submit an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator. If the Adjudicator agrees that the policy is unfair or otherwise breaches the Code she can require schools to amend their admission arrangements.

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the monetary value of the relevant information that a franchising authority may obtain from local bus operators under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL].

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Government has made no assessment of the monetary value of the information that a local authority can obtain under Clause 5. The Government understands that some of the information will be commercially sensitive and it is therefore imperative that authorities treat it with care. The information can be used only in connection with the franchising scheme.

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis local authorities are to be given powers under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL] to demand relevant information from bus operators, particularly in cases where such relevant information is market-sensitive and providing it to any other party might be contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Government wants to ensure that authorities considering franchising can access the information they need to accurately assess their franchising scheme. This will help to ensure that informed decisions can be made on the basis of robust evidence and analysis.

    We recognise that some of the information provided by operators will be commercially sensitive. Franchising authorities will need to treat this information with care, and will be able to refuse to release such information by way of the relevant Freedom of Information exemptions. The Bill also makes clear that the information acquired by the franchising authority must only be used in connection with its franchising functions, and not for other purposes.

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether draft regulations will be made available under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL] relating to the provision of relevant information that a franchising authority may obtain from local bus operators, and if so, when.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Government will work closely with both local authority stakeholders and bus operators to develop sensible proposals that both meet the needs of franchising authorities and do not place unnecessary burdens on local bus operators.

    Policy discussions with key stakeholders were started in May, and policy scoping notes, setting out the policy intent of each of the regulations, were circulated to Noble Peers on 15th June. Our intention is to continue to engage with bus operators and local authorities to produce draft regulations for consultation in the autumn.

  • Baroness Hollins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Baroness Hollins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hollins on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 26 January (HL Deb, col 1152), who, in addition to Sir Brian Leveson, will be consulted before a decision on Leveson Part 2 is made, and what form that consultation will take.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Criminal proceedings connected to the subject matter of the Leveson Inquiry, including the appeals process, have not yet been completed. We‎ have always been clear that these cases must conclude before we consider Part 2 of the Inquiry.