Author: admin

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 16 March 2016 to Question 30139, what steps she plans to take to expand grant funding projects to other local authorities to support young carers under the age of 16, similar to that provided by Suffolk family carers.

    Edward Timpson

    My Department will make decisions about grant funding for further work to support young carers on the basis of:

    The research and evaluation reports are due this year.

    “

  • Derek Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Derek Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Derek Thomas on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether her Department issues guidance to schools on how to identify and manage incidences of parental alienation.

    Edward Timpson

    Protection from abuse and neglect is a fundamental right of all children and young people, regardless of their family situation, and the government will continue to review how schools, police, social services and other agencies work together to protect all children.

    The Department published updated statutory guidance in 2015 on Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. Schools and colleges must have regard to this guidance when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. All school and college staff should be aware of the various forms of abuse, including emotional harm, so that they are able to identify children in need of help and support and know what action to take. This would include recognising where children are suffering as the result of family relationship breakdown.

  • Mark Hendrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Mark Hendrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 16 March 2016 to Question 30801, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to amend section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to introduce a requirement on local authorities to ensure that home-schooled children are being educated to the same standard as schooled children.

    Edward Timpson

    The standard to which home schooled children have to be educated is already the same as for those attending school. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 requires parents to ensure that a child of compulsory school age receives full-time education suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitudes, either by regular attendance at school, or otherwise. ‘Education otherwise than at school’ includes elective home education, and therefore, although methods may differ, the overall requirement is the same.

    Section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 deals with the inspection of local authorities by Ofsted and would not be an appropriate method for imposing a new duty on them.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the effect of her Department’s reform of AS and A-level qualifications on the number of hours of study students are undertaking in post-16 education.

    Nick Gibb

    The number of guided learning hours for AS and A levels have not changed as a result of our reforms. However, with the move to linear qualifications, there will no longer be the routine and automatic external assessment of students at the end of year 12 which places unnecessary burdens on students’ and teachers’ time.

    Study programmes are funded per student rather than per qualification. Funding rates are based on an average of 600 hours per year of planned activities per student.

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29811, on further education, how many meetings have been held for area reviews in (a) Birmingham and Solihull, (b) Greater Manchester, (c) Sheffield City Region, (d) Tees Valley, (e) Sussex, (f) Solent and (g) West Yorkshire in each of the last nine months.

    Nick Boles

    A wide range of meetings are held within each area review, which is a locally owned process designed to meet the needs of each local area. Bilateral meetings will often take place, for instance, between individual colleges which might be exploring restructuring options. Local stakeholders will often meet in smaller groupings to discuss particular issues or themes, for example local enterprise partnerships and local authorities may have set up separate meetings. Additionally, some local stakeholders will seek meetings to ensure their involvement at particular points, for example local MPs once recommendations emerge.

    The number and type of meetings are likely to vary with each review, depending on local provision, circumstances and issues as well as local interest in engaging with the review work. The following focuses on the formal meetings which are a core part of the area review process and would therefore be consistent across the country.

    A number of formal area review steering group meetings have taken place in each area since September 2015. No steering group meetings were held prior to September 2015. Meetings held between September 2015 and March 2016 are as follows:

    • In Birmingham and Solihull, one meeting was held in each of the following months: September, October, November, December, January and March.
    • In Greater Manchester, one meeting was held in each of the following months: September, November and December.
    • In Sheffield City Region, one meeting was held in each of the following months: September, November, December and March.
    • In Tees Valley, one meeting was held in each of the following months: October, November, December, February and March.
    • In Sussex, one meeting was held in each of the following months: October, December, January, February and March.
    • In the Solent, one meeting was held in each of the following months: November, December, January and March.
    • In West Yorkshire, one meeting was held in each of the following months: November, December, January and March.
  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29811, on further education, if she will publish the minutes of each of those meetings.

    Nick Boles

    Minutes of the steering group meetings are not published as they are a series of internal discussions during which local stakeholders review post-16 provision in their area and work towards a set of recommendations. As such, each local steering group has space and autonomy to develop their proposals and discuss local issues effectively.

    The Department is committed to making the outcomes transparent, and once each review reaches its conclusions, there will be a summary report published at the end of each Area Review process.

  • Christopher Pincher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Christopher Pincher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Pincher on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many tonnes of air pollution control residues were recovered into end-of-waste products in 2015; into what types of products those residues were returned back into the environment; how those products can be traced in case of recall; and what estimate she has made of the number of tonnes of air pollution control residues that will be recovered into end-of-waste products in 2016.

    Rory Stewart

    We do not collect statistics relating to materials that meet end of waste criteria. We do not hold information on the number of tonnes of air pollution residues recovered into end of waste products, nor have we made predictions for 2016. We provide opinions on whether materials have met end of waste or not when requested by companies. If a material ceases to be waste the Environment Agency has no further role regarding the regulation or monitoring of that non waste product.

  • Christopher Pincher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Christopher Pincher – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Pincher on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, upon what criteria she plans to decide whether to remove the derogation in the Waste Framework Directive which currently allows air pollution control residues, which have been recovered from municipal waste to energy incineration facilities, to be treated and disposed to hazardous landfill sites.

    Rory Stewart

    The derogation to allow the landfilling of air pollution control residues that are three times above normal waste acceptance criteria was originally granted because there was a lack of alternative treatment capacity at the time to either treat certain wastes to levels meeting normal waste acceptance limits, to treat the wastes via alternative treatment technologies or to recycle or recover the residues. The availability of sufficient alternative treatment capacity and the costs of that treatment are therefore the two central criteria that the government will use to decide whether or not to remove the derogation.

    The Government is making an assessment of the quantity of air pollution control residues produced at energy from waste facilities to inform its decision on whether or not to remove the derogation to allow the landfilling of air pollution control residues that are three times above normal waste acceptance criteria. These figures will be available following the announcement of that decision.

    The Government is making an assessment of the costs of the different forms of treatment for air pollution control residues, including their mixing into concrete blocks and their disposal to hazardous waste landfill, to inform its decision on whether or not to remove the derogation to allow the landfilling of air pollution control residues that are three times above normal waste acceptance criteria. These figures will be available following the announcement of that decision.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Kerry McCarthy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department will launch a consultation on proposals for a deposit return system for single use drinks containers.

    Rory Stewart

    Defra analysed the costs and benefits of implementing a deposit return system (DRS) for single use drink containers as part of the 2011 Review of Waste Policy in England, and sought views in the 2012 consultation on higher packaging recycling targets.

    This work showed that introducing a DRS may increase recycling and reduce litter but might impose additional costs on businesses, consumers and local authorities (which would lose revenue from recycling). However, we lack evidence to quantify these benefits and costs appropriately. The current approach has driven a significant increase in packaging waste recycling rates, from less than 47% in 2003 to nearly 65% in 2013.

    Last year, the Scottish Government published a feasibility study and a call for evidence investigating the implementation of a DRS for single use drink containers in Scotland. This valuable work highlighted significant uncertainties regarding the impacts and benefits that a DRS would have, notably regarding costs, environmental quality and littering, and existing waste collection systems. The Scottish Government is doing further work on the topic and we will review any new evidence arising from this in due course. However, in the meantime, we will continue to focus on improving existing waste collection and recycling systems, and developing a new National Litter Strategy for England to help coordinate and maximise the impact of anti-litter activity by local government, industry and others.

  • Chris Stephens – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Stephens – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Stephens on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the preparedness is of the Animal and Plant Health Agency to react to and control a potential future animal health outbreak similar in scale to the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.

    George Eustice

    The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), compiles the UK contingency plan for exotic notifiable disease that sits above plans designed by Defra and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.

    These are key documents that describe the strategic, tactical and operational responses required to any incursion of exotic notifiable disease, such as foot and mouth disease. These plans are complemented by specific GB disease control strategies and APHA work with the Government Departments in each administration to produce the necessary operational instructions.

    To ensure the plans and instructions are fit for purpose, the UK runs a national animal disease exercise roughly every other year on various exotic diseases and we regularly include foot and mouth disease in those exercises.

    The next national exercise will be in June 2018 and will be based on a foot and mouth disease scenario.

    APHA also create and manage an annual programme of regional or country exercises designed to identify best practice and any gaps in existing plans or procedures. They also run table-top exercises for APHA’s policy customers to identify issues that may arise from new and emerging threats such as African Horse Sickness.