Author: admin

  • Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ritchie on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with senior officials in the Royal Navy on the recommendations of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report on the collision involving the MV Karen fishing boat from Ardglass, County Down in the Irish Sea on 15 April 2016.

    Mike Penning

    As recognised in the Marine Accident Investigation Report (MAIB), the Royal Navy has already taken actions as a result of this incident. We are now considering the MAIB’s report and its conclusions and recommendations to identify what further actions may be required. I will be visiting Northern Ireland soon and go to Ardglass.

  • Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to announce the contract award date for the Defence Business Services corporate services integration and innovation provider contract; and if he will make a statement.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Ministry of Defence is currently examining options for the future of Defence Business Services (DBS) as part of the Future DBS Programme. No final decisions have been taken on whether any elements of DBS’ current operations will be outsourced. Timescales will be confirmed in the event of a decision to outsource.

  • Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to pause the issuing of a formal contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for the outsourcing of Defence Business Services in light of the implications of the EU referendum result.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Ministry of Defence is currently examining options for the future of Defence Business Services (DBS) as part of the Future DBS Programme. No final decisions have been taken on whether any elements of DBS’ current operations will be outsourced. Timescales will be confirmed in the event of a decision to outsource.

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions his Department had with UK steelmakers before the decision was made to use French steel in the construction of Trident successor submarines.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The management of the steel procurement process for the Successor Programme is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor, BAE Systems. The Ministry of Defence’s involvement with suppliers was limited to conducting a technical assessment during the tendering process to ensure bids met specifications.

    The tendering process was progressed and concluded by the Prime Contractor, no viable UK bid was received for this part of the Successor submarine manufacture. Other stages of construction will include grades of steel manufactured by British suppliers and I encourage them to take the opportunity to bid.

    Overall, 85% of BAE System’s supply chain for the new submarines is based in the UK.

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department received any bid from steel companies with plants in the UK to supply plate steel for the Successor class of nuclear submarines.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The management of the steel procurement process for the Successor Programme is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor, BAE Systems. The Ministry of Defence’s involvement with suppliers was limited to conducting a technical assessment during the tendering process to ensure bids met specifications.

    The tendering process was progressed and concluded by the Prime Contractor, no viable UK bid was received for this part of the Successor submarine manufacture. Other stages of construction will include grades of steel manufactured by British suppliers and I encourage them to take the opportunity to bid.

    Overall, 85% of BAE System’s supply chain for the new submarines is based in the UK.

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 14 June 2016 to Question 40132, whether there have been any changes to her Department’s plans for the roll out of the National Teaching Service; and when her Department expects to confirm the details of those plans.

    Nick Gibb

    We are currently reviewing the lessons learned from the National Teaching Service pilot alongside our growing evidence base on the recruitment challenges that different schools face. The next steps on this will be set out in due course.

  • Michael Dugher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Michael Dugher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michael Dugher on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much funding per head is received for childcare in (a) Barnsley East constituency, (b) Barnsley, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber and (d) the UK in the latest period for which figures are available.

    Caroline Dinenage

    Funding for the free early years entitlements is allocated on a local authority basis. In 2016-17[1], the relevant hourly funding rates per child were as follows:

    Local authority

    Three and four year old entitlement

    Two year old entitlement

    Barnsley

    £3.99

    £4.85

    Bradford

    £5.19

    £4.85

    Calderdale

    £4.15

    £4.85

    Doncaster

    £3.87

    £4.85

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    £4.40

    £4.85

    Kingston upon Hull, City of

    £4.20

    £4.85

    Kirklees

    £4.37

    £4.85

    Leeds

    £4.09

    £4.85

    North East Lincolnshire

    £3.72

    £4.85

    North Lincolnshire

    £4.39

    £4.85

    North Yorkshire

    £4.49

    £4.85

    Rotherham

    £4.07

    £4.85

    Sheffield

    £4.51

    £4.85

    Wakefield

    £4.14

    £4.85

    York

    £3.63

    £4.85

    In 2016-17, the national average hourly funding rates paid by the Department for Education to local authorities in England is £4.51 for three and four year olds and £5.09 for two-year-olds.

    All funding rates for three and four year olds are exclusive of the Early Years Pupil Premium which is an additional funding stream for disadvantaged children.

    The figures given above relate to England. Childcare policy for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is devolved.

    [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2016-to-2017

  • Michael Dugher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Michael Dugher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michael Dugher on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much funding per head has been allocated for childcare in (a) Barnsley East constituency, (b) Barnsley, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber and (d) the UK in the financial years (i) 2016-17 and (ii) 2017-18.

    Caroline Dinenage

    Funding for the free early years entitlements is allocated on a local authority basis. In 2016-17, the relevant hourly funding rates per child were as follows:

    LAs

    Three and Four Year old Entitilement

    Two year old entitlement

    Barnsley

    £3.99

    £4.85

    Bradford

    £5.19

    £4.85

    Calderdale

    £4.15

    £4.85

    Doncaster

    £3.87

    £4.85

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    £4.40

    £4.85

    Kingston upon Hull City of

    £4.20

    £4.85

    Kirkless

    £4.37

    £4.85

    Leeds

    £4.09

    £4.85

    North East Lincolnshire

    £3.72

    £4.85

    North Lincolnshire

    £4.39

    £4.85

    North Yorkshire

    £4.49

    £4.85

    Rotherham

    £4.07

    £4.85

    Sheffield

    £4.51

    £4.85

    Wakefield

    £4.14

    £4.85

    York

    £3.63

    £4.85

    The figures given above relate to England. Childcare policy for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is devolved. In 2016-17, the national average hourly funding rate paid by the Department for Education to local authorities in England, is £4.51 for three and four-year-olds and £5.09 for two-year-olds.

    All funding rates for three and four-year-olds are exclusive of the Early Years Pupil Premium which is an additional funding stream for disadvantaged children.

    The new funding rates under our proposed early years national funding formula from 2017-18, can be found here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/early-years-funding-changes-to-funding-for-3-and-4-year-olds

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Farron on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will review the effect of SATs in primary schools on children’s mental health.

    Edward Timpson

    Good mental health and resilience are a priority for the Department. We have high aspirations for all children and want them to be able to fulfil their potential, both academically and in terms of their mental wellbeing.

    Good schools manage tests appropriately, and there is a lot that teachers can do to help prepare pupils to take tests and exams, and to help parents support their children. Good school leaders know that positive mental wellbeing, as part of a ‘whole-school’ ethos, along with good teaching, supports pupil attainment.

    The Government considers the impact of primary testing on all children as a matter of course, and we listen to the views of parents on an ongoing basis. Tests are an established and valuable part of a child’s education. Tests in primary school are not examinations and should not put pressure on pupils. They are about helping teachers to identify where additional support is needed and ensuring that schools are accountable for the education that they provide.

    We trust primary school teachers to use their experience and professional expertise to administer assessments in a way that does not put undue pressure on pupils. Schools should encourage all pupils to work hard and achieve well, but we do not recommend that they devote excessive preparation time to assessment, and certainly not at the expense of pupils’ wellbeing.

    We know that recent reforms to primary assessment have represented a significant change for schools and these will need time to embed. We are committed to listening to teachers and parents to ensure primary assessment arrangements are proportionate as well as robust.

    To support schools to understand signs of stress and mental ill-health and to provide support to their pupils, the Government has funded MindEd to develop a free, on-line resource for all professionals, including teaching staff, working with children and young people to access information about mental health issues. We also funded the PSHE Association to produce guidance and age-appropriate lesson plans on teaching about mental health in PSHE. In addition we have published guidance on behaviour and mental health, which sets out how schools can identify problems and seek support, as well as a blueprint for effective school-based counselling to help schools provide access to support.

    However, teachers are not mental health specialists and need to know how to help pupils access specialist support. We contributed to a £3 million joint pilot between schools and children and young people’s mental health services to improve local knowledge and develop effective referrals to allow pupils to access timely specialist support where needed.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 26 July 2016 to Question 42842 and with reference to freedom of information requests ref: 2016-0032573 and ref: 2016-0042333, on pupil data sharing with the police and Home Office, on how many people has data been (a) requested and (b) provided in response to requests for information to the National Pupil Database made by the (i) Home Office and (ii) police; and if she will make a statement.

    Nick Gibb

    The National Pupil Database (NPD) is information the Department for Education (DfE) holds on pupils attending schools in England, which includes information collected in the School Census and attainment data from awarding organisations.

    The Home Office and police can request data from the NPD where they have clear evidence that a child may be at risk or if there is evidence of criminal activity. The data that can be requested does not include information on nationality, country of birth or English language proficiency.

    Between April 2012 and October 2016, the Police have made 31 access requests of the NPD data and the School Census. 21 of these have resulted in information being passed to the police. All were requests for individual level data about individual pupils. Therefore, information about 21 pupils has been shared.

    “Between July 2015 and September 2016, the Home Office has made requests of DfE data on 25 occasions. Two of these requests were subsequently withdrawn. During this 15 month period, requests relating to a total of 2,462 individuals have been made by the Home Office to DfE and 520 records have been identified within DfE data and returned to the Home Office.”

    To address any uncertainties, I have placed an information note in the House Libraries.