Author: admin

  • 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 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been spent by them or Trinity House on the E-LORAN navigation system in each of the last 10 years.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Expenditure on the eLoran navigation system by the Trinity House Research and Radio Navigation department for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

    Exp (£000)

    Income (£000)

    Net Exp (£000)

    07/08

    194

    -188

    7

    08/09

    256

    0

    256

    09/10

    411

    -234

    176

    10/11

    606

    -141

    466

    11/12

    708

    -200

    508

    12/13

    573

    -200

    373

    13/14

    937

    -200

    737

    14/15

    1,001

    -100

    901

    15/16

    576

    -100

    476

    Total

    5,263

    -1,363

    3,900

    The vast majority of funding for Trinity House, and therefore the R&RNAV department, is met by the General Lighthouse Fund.

  • Lord Kilclooney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Kilclooney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kilclooney on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the value of (1) UK exports to the US, and (2) imports from the US to the UK, for the most recent years for which figures are available; and whether this trade was based on any trade agreement with the US.

    Lord Price

    In 2015 UK exports of goods and services to the US were £ 95.1 billion and UK imports from the US were £ 59.7 billion.

    There is no bilateral trade agreement with the US. Both the EU and US are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). There are no estimates of the impact that their membership of the WTO and its trade agreements such as the Information Technology Agreement has had on UK-US trade.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address the rise in levels of homelessness and rough sleeping in England.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The Government is committed to preventing and reducing homelessness. One person without a home is one too many. That is why we have increased central investment to tackle homelessness over the next four years to £139 million. This includes a new national £10 million programme to support innovative ways to prevent and reduce rough sleeping, building on the success of our No Second Night Out initiative. We are also developing a new national £10 million Social Impact Bond fund to help to help homeless people with the most complex needs such as mental health difficulties or addiction.

    At Budget we went one step further and announced we will launch a new £100 million programme for low-cost move on accommodation, including for rough sleepers leaving hostels. We have also protected homelessness prevention funding for local authorities, totalling £315 million by 2019-20.

    We are working with local authorities, homelessness charities and across departments to consider options, including legislation, to prevent more people from becoming homeless.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children and teenagers in the UK were referred to NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in each of the last five years; how many children and teenagers in each of those years received treatment; and how many did not.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Health is a devolved service and this answer relates only to England.

    The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) advises that it does not currently hold data to answer the questions asked. However, it has been capturing child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) data since January 2016 within the new Mental Health Services Data Set. On 20 April 2016 it published the first month (January 2016) of data from this new data source on a select number of measures it developed and quality assured to a certain level with the help of stakeholders, although these data remain experimental and could be subject to change.

    As at 31 January 2016, there were 104,480 people in contact with CAMHS. HSCIC is currently unable to identify those who are already receiving treatment and those who are awaiting assessment.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to combat Daesh in Libya.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are extremely concerned about the rise of Daesh in Libya. We are engaging with the new Libyan government and working closely with international partners to develop a comprehensive approach to defeat Daesh in Libya. Initial planning has focused on building the capabilities of Libyan security forces.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many public libraries have closed since 2010; how many are currently under threat of closure; and what action they are taking to ensure that public libraries are maintained as a statutory service and to promote improvement of the public library service.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport monitors closely proposed changes to library service provision throughout England. The Department does not maintain detail on the number of public libraries under review by local authorities, but based on desk research we estimate that from January 2010 to January 2016 approximately 110 static public libraries in England closed completely.

    Public libraries are funded and run by local authorities and it is a matter for local authorities to determine how best to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service to their local community, within available resources.

    My Department, together with the Local Government Association, has set up a Leadership for Libraries Taskforce to help public libraries in England build on good practice and add value for the communities they serve. The Taskforce is currently consulting on the attached document at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/libraries-deliver-ambition-for-public-libraries-in-england-2016-2021 which sets out the ambition for public libraries in the future. Furthermore, thanks to Government funding, free Wi-Fi is available to 99% of public libraries in England.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, on 14 March (HC29894), and in the light of the figures released by the Home Office on the number of non-EU students who had their visas curtailed in the three years to the end of December 2015 as part of their strategy to clamp down on immigration abuse, how many educational institutions were affected, and whether any of those educational institutions remain open to British and EU students.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    It is not possible to run a report linking each curtailment decision to a specific educational institution. To provide the information requested would require a manual check of every curtailment in the cohort referenced which would incur a disproportionate cost.

    The Immigration Rules allow for leave of an individual to be curtailed for a variety of reasons, not only as a result of an institution losing its sponsor licence but also, for example, is a student drops out of their course of study and is reported to the Home Office by the sponsor. Sponsors have a number of reporting duties in respect of their students, and these can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sponsor-a-tier-4-student-guidance-for-educators

    The Home Office does not close down educational institutions. The revocation of a Tier 4 sponsor licence means that an educational institution can no longer recruit non-EEA students under the Points Based System. The institution may, however, continue to operate and teach UK and EEA students. The Home Office does not routinely monitor educational institutions who do not hold a sponsor licence.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions that executive pay is not fit for purpose” and that extensive reform is needed to allay “widespread scepticism and [the] loss of public confidence”.”

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has noted the views set out in the interim report of the Executive Remuneration Working Group.

    Government reforms introduced in 2013 provide a significantly more transparent and robust governance framework for executive pay. The reforms give shareholders a binding vote at least every three years on company pay policies and an annual vote on the remuneration report which sets out exactly what directors have been paid. The annual vote is advisory but if the shareholders vote down the report, the company has to bring a revised pay policy to the next Annual General Meeting.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive executive pay and to hold boards to account on pay policies and it is now for investors and companies to engage constructively to ensure that pay policies are fit for purpose and that they align the interests of executives, shareholders and companies.

    Evidence from the current round of Annual General Meetings is that the reforms are having an impact and that shareholders are increasingly willing to use these powers where they are dissatisfied. BP and Smith and Nephew’s shareholders, for example, voted against their companies’ remuneration reports and the shareholders of Weir Group voted against that company’s remuneration policy in a binding vote. There have been significant shareholder votes against the remuneration reports at a number of other companies.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but expects to see companies liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions that the current pay approach for listed companies had resulted in a poor alignment of interests between executives

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has noted the views set out in the interim report of the Executive Remuneration Working Group.

    Government reforms introduced in 2013 provide a significantly more transparent and robust governance framework for executive pay. The reforms give shareholders a binding vote at least every three years on company pay policies and an annual vote on the remuneration report which sets out exactly what directors have been paid. The annual vote is advisory but if the shareholders vote down the report, the company has to bring a revised pay policy to the next Annual General Meeting.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive executive pay and to hold boards to account on pay policies and it is now for investors and companies to engage constructively to ensure that pay policies are fit for purpose and that they align the interests of executives, shareholders and companies.

    Evidence from the current round of Annual General Meetings is that the reforms are having an impact and that shareholders are increasingly willing to use these powers where they are dissatisfied. BP and Smith and Nephew’s shareholders, for example, voted against their companies’ remuneration reports and the shareholders of Weir Group voted against that company’s remuneration policy in a binding vote. There have been significant shareholder votes against the remuneration reports at a number of other companies.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but expects to see companies liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions, and whether they have any plans either by statutory means or by Ministerial engagement to ensure greater transparency in relation to executive pay, clearer alignment of shareholder, company and executive interests, more accountability on the part of remuneration committees and greater engagement with and control by shareholders working through company boards.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government welcomes the interim conclusions of the Executive Remuneration Working Group. They represent a valuable source of ideas for ensuring more effective engagement between investors and directors and ensuring that executive pay policies are tailored to the needs of individual businesses. We also welcome the Working Group’s plans to consult interested stakeholders on practical ways of improving the current approach to executive pay. Departmental officials will be engaging with the roundtables that are being planned.

    The Government made significant reforms to the governance of executive pay in 2013. Under these reforms, companies are required to put their pay policies to shareholders at least every three years. These policies have to include information on how each director will be paid and how that is linked to different levels of performance. This is subject to a binding vote. Companies also have to provide shareholders with an Annual Remuneration Report which reports the pay of each director in a single figure and again has to set out clearly how the actual payments relate to performance. Shareholders have an advisory vote on this report, but if they reject the report, the company must submit a revised pay policy to a binding vote at the next AGM.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive pay and hold boards to account on executive pay policies. There is strong evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are willing to use these powers, particularly where levels of pay are out of line with performance.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but is looking for firm evidence that companies are liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.