Author: admin

  • Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jess Phillips on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the Answer of 11 May 2016 to Question 35798, on Academies Sponsorship, how many of the re-brokered schools in each year since 2010 had been graded inadequate by Ofsted.

    Edward Timpson

    60 of the 130 academies and free schools that have been re-brokered since 2010 had been graded inadequate by Ofsted.

    The remaining academies and free schools were re-brokered because Regional Schools Commissioners identified weaknesses in those schools that could be better addressed by a new sponsor.

  • Ben Bradshaw – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Ben Bradshaw – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Bradshaw on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether UK citizens will have the rights that currently apply to access higher education in the EU in the event of the UK leaving the EU and prior to the completion of exit negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

    Joseph Johnson

    The procedure governing a country’s departure from the EU is set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This provides for a period of two years for the negotiation of exit terms. The EU Treaties would continue to apply to the departing Member State until the Article 50 agreement had entered into force, or for two years if no agreement had been reached and no extension to the two year period had been granted. A request for an extension could only be granted with the unanimous agreement of the remaining Member States. The Government’s position is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what proportion of coal produced and imported into the UK is used for (a) electricity generation, (b) steel production, (c) cement manufacture, (d) domestic uses, (e) carbon fibre goods, (f) liquid fuel manufacture, (g) mobile phone components and (h) heritage railways in the latest year for which figures are available.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The table below gives the proportion of coal produced and imported into the UK by sector for 2014. DECC only produces industry consumption data for the main industrial sectors. Therefore, data is not broken down specifically for cement manufacture, carbon fibre goods, liquid fuel manufacture and mobile phone components. For industry the table shows the two largest consumers and iron and steel.

    Thousand Tonnes

    Proportion %

    Total Demand

    48,500

    Transformation

    45,665

    94.1%

    Of which: Electricity Generation

    38,400

    79.2%

    Industry

    2,240

    4.6%

    Of which : Mineral Products

    1173

    2.4%

    Pulp, paper, printing, etc

    136

    0.2%

    Iron and Steel

    54

    0.1%

    Heritage railways

    13

    0.03%

    Domestic

    547

    1.1%

    *Other

    35

    0.1%

    *includes energy industry use, public administration, commercial and miscellaneous.

    Source:

    DUKES table 2.4 available at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solid-fuels-and-derived-gases-chapter-2-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes.

    “

  • Ronnie Cowan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Ronnie Cowan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps the Government is taking to ensure all Feed-in-Tariff applications from small and medium-sized enterprises are dealt with in 60 days.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Ofgem aims to approve applications in under 12 weeks where all the necessary information has been provided. Those applications still in the process after 12 weeks are likely to be complex or require further clarification from the applicant.

    Ofgem is committed to continuous improvement of accreditation processes and works with applicants to get applications approved as quickly as possible. In order to accomplish this Ofgem has now doubled the level of staffing in this area and made process improvements.

  • Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Amber Rudd

    The EU has an effective carbon market in the form of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Since 2005 the EU ETS has been the world’s largest emissions trading system, limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the power and heavy industrial sectors. The Government recognises that while the EU ETS works well in terms of process, an oversupply of allowances in the system means it is not delivering the degree of low carbon investment it should. This is why we strongly support structural changes to strengthen the EU ETS and are actively pressing for reforms in discussion with EU counterparts and other stakeholders.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the Answer of 18 April 2016 to Question 32639, how she ensures that those most in need benefit from the Energy Company Obligation and Warm Home Discount; and whether she plans to change how households in fuel poverty are identified.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Currently, the Warm Home Discount and the Affordable Warmth Group under the Energy Company Obligation are targeted at low income households, using means-tested benefits as the basis for eligibility.

    In April this year, Government consulted on plans to enable data sharing between government departments, specified public authorities and energy suppliers with the specific purpose of identifying and targeting assistance at fuel poor households. If successful, these proposals would allow DECC to use government-held data to identify more accurately low income households with high energy costs. This capability could then be used under a future Warm Home Discount.

    There will be a reformed domestic supplier obligation (Energy Company Obligation) from April 2017, which will run for 5 years. It will upgrade the energy efficiency of homes and tackle the root cause of fuel poverty. Government will be consulting shortly on proposals for the 2017/18 scheme, including how households in fuel poverty would be identified.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the Answer of 18 April 2016 to Question 32639, how much of the investment in energy efficiency measures referred to was spent on (a) administrative costs and (b) targeted energy efficiency schemes; and what estimate she has made of the amount that will be spent on administrative costs relating to such planned investment in the current Parliament.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Of the £7.4bn spend last parliament, around £350m was spent by energy suppliers on administration and the remainder (around £7bn) spent on delivery.

    Of the £1.8bn estimated to have spent between May 2015 and the end of March 2017 (when ECO is due to end), around £160m is expected to be spent on administration, with the remaining £1.6bn spent on delivery.

    The Government has yet to consult on the design of the future supplier obligation replacing ECO, so it is not possible to estimate the administration costs beyond March 2017. However, the consultation is expected to include provisions designed to reduce the cost of administration relative to ECO, freeing up more of the estimated £1.9bn for delivery.

    The administration costs are proportionately higher under this parliament, as ECO strengthened the monitoring and reporting requirements for suppliers relative to those under CERT and CESP (which were in operation during the last parliament), to allow more detailed and timely monitoring of suppliers’ progress against their obligations.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the Answer of 18 April 2016 to Question 32639, how much of the investment in energy efficiency measures referred to in (a) the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and (b) the current Parliament is classified as direct government investment.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The vast majority of spending on energy efficiency is delivered through Government obligations on energy suppliers and is thus not classified as direct Government investment.

    Of the £7.4bn estimated spend last parliament, around £150m is classified as direct Government investment [1] (around 2% of the total); this parliament around £100m of the £3.6bn spend (also around 2%) falls into this category.

    [1] Green Deal Home Improvement Fund, Cashback and Green Deal Communities

  • Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the Answer of 4 May 2016 to Question 33530, on EU law, if he will place in the Library a list of those proposals on which texts have been agreed at COREPER level and which are waiting full council consideration.

    Mr David Lidington

    The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) prepares items for agreement by Ministers attending the Council of the European Union, in line with the UK negotiating position agreed by HMG Ministers. Legislative proposals are subject to scrutiny by Parliament in accordance with the Scrutiny Reserve Resolutions prior to adoption at Council. Council meetings are reported to both Houses by Written or, in exceptional cases, Oral Statements, with letters sent to the European Select Committees in recess. Provisional agendas for Council and COREPER meetings can be accessed through the website of the Council of the European Union: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/

    “

  • Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much funding the Government provided to each (a) Israeli and (b) Palestinian non-governmental organisation through the (i) Conflict Security and Stability Fund and (ii) bilateral programme budget in the most recent year for which figures are available.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    (a)The provisional project spend for 2015/16 for non-governmental organisations registered in Israel provided through: (i) the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund is: The Peres Centre for Peace – £44,592; Injaz – Centre for Professional Arab Local Governance – £60,608; Kids Creating Peace – £40,000; Yesh Din – £196,084; Gisha – £53,126; Peace Now – £124,361; Terrestrial Jerusalem – £51,040; The International Peace and Cooperation Centre – £232,933; and Rabbis for Human Rights – £101,441; (ii) the Bilateral Programme Budget is: none.

    (b)The provisional project spend for 2015/16 for non-governmental organisations registered with the Palestinian Authority provided through: (i) the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund is: Jerusalem Community Advocacy Network (also registered in Israel) – £141,679 (ii) the Bilateral Programme Budget is: Society for the care of Disabled People – £9,117; Nawa Association for Culture and Arts Association – £7,111; Al Aqsa Sports and Social Club- £9,602; Society for Physically Handicapped People – £9,602; Ibda’a for children development and institutional cultural exchange – £5,062; Idna Cooperation – Women Capacity Building- £6,658; Sourif Association for Higher Education – £2,920; Iman and Baraem Kindergartens – £4,865 ; ADWAR Association for Social Change – £5,516; Assembly of Benevolent Operation – £7,061; Atwar centre – £1,282; Diyar Sports school for Girls – £6,328; Saint Nicolas Home for the Elderly – £5,183; Hebron Rehabilitation Committee – £5,010; Ashtar Theatre – £2,127; The Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry – £9,963; Aqaba Club for Unity and Hope – £5,169; Burj Al Luqluq Youth Centre (also registered in Israel) – £19,297; and Silwan Youth Centre (also registered in Israel) – £7,173