Category: Speeches

  • Jonathan Edwards – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Jonathan Edwards – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Edwards on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many cases have come before the Court of Appeal challenging the lawfulness of the under-occupancy penalty on the grounds of the effect of that policy on (a) victims of domestic violence and (b) seriously disabled children who need overnight care.

    Justin Tomlinson

    (a) One victim of domestic violence has challenged the removal of the spare room subsidy in the Court of Appeal.

    (b) One challenge in the Court of Appeal from a case with a disabled child who requires overnight care from a non-resident carer.

  • Iain Wright – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Iain Wright – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Iain Wright on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the estimated (a) cost of establishing and (b) annual running cost of the Institute of Apprenticeships is; whether his Department has made an assessment of the effects of funding that institute on his Department’s annual programme budget; and if he will make a statement.

    Nick Boles

    The final size and structure of the Institute for Apprenticeships will be determined by the shadow chair and CEO later in the spring and this will then determine its final running cost. The body will be funded by Government using public funds, as the rest of the governance system is, and it is expected that some funding will be freed up from savings across the Department.

  • David Burrowes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    David Burrowes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Burrowes on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many online sellers of knives have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for selling knives to people under 18 since that section came into force; and what sentences were handed down to people so convicted.

    Andrew Selous

    This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

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

    Caroline Ansell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Ansell on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps she is taking to assist teachers in managing their workload.

    Nick Gibb

    We are continuing our extensive work with the profession to remove unnecessary workload so that teachers can concentrate on teaching and not bureaucracy and paperwork.

    This includes establishing three review groups to tackle the top issues raised by teachers in the Government’s Workload Challenge in 2014: marking, lesson planning, and data management.

    The reports from these review groups were published on 26 March 2016. We have accepted all their recommendations for Government.

    As the reports make clear, it is for everybody involved in education to act on the principles and recommendations in these reports so teachers can focus on what really matters – inspiring their pupils to achieve their full potential.

    We will continue to work with the teaching profession to make sure they have the ongoing support they need. We have recently conducted the first biennial Teacher Workload Survey, a commitment which will allow us to track teacher workload over the coming years. The results of the first survey will be published later this year.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-05-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the Treasury ascertains that the funds of UK companies that operate in North Korea do not contribute to that country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme or its human rights violations.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for ensuring that financial sanctions, including those relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (North Korea), are properly understood, implemented and enforced in the United Kingdom.

    OFSI is not an investigative or prosecutorial body but reviews suspected breaches of financial sanctions and then passes information to law enforcement bodies who would determine whether an investigation and or prosecution is appropriate.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Peter Bottomley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Bottomley on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether East Lancashire Hospitals Trust authorised Mr David Chang to say that the General Medical Council had ever given formal advice or a warning or decided on a sanction on Mr Aditya Agrawal.

    Mr Jeremy Hunt

    This is an employer and employee matter between the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and Mr Aditya Agrawal respectively. The Department cannot comment on individual employment matters that are the responsibility of independent organisations, and that are subject to ongoing legal proceedings or on matters relating to individual clinical cases or other personal information. We understand that the cost to East Lancashire Trust of legal proceedings concerning Mr Agrawal is £296,848.42 to date, and that the Trust does not have insurance costs for legal awards in the event of the Trust or one of its employees being subject to legal action for defamation.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 2 September 2016 to Question 44386, on Defence Business Services: Contracts, if he will consult current and former members of the armed forces before any decision is taken on the operation of the repatriation and burial of war casualties.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Ministry of Defence currently has no plans to change the operation of repatriation and burial of war casualties. In the event of significant changes being proposed, Ministers, the single Services, Permanent Joint Headquarters and other interested parties would be consulted.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2015 to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to Question 9852, by when his Department will be able to form a reliable estimate of the number of disability living allowance recipients who are Motability users who will not qualify for the enhanced rate of the personal independence payment mobility component.

    Justin Tomlinson

    We expect to be able to form a reliable estimate once a significant proportion of working-age Disability Living Allowance recipients have been reassessed for the Personal Independence Payment. Over 1.75 million claimants require reassessing; as of July 2015 circa 186,900 had been reassessed.

    As referenced in our previous reply of 16 September 2015, DWP will continue to pay DLA for four weeks after the decision not to pay PIP enhanced mobility component is made. The Motability charity has confirmed that claimants can keep their car for up to three weeks after DLA payments end. This means that claimants will retain their car for up to nearly two months even though they are not entitled to PIP enhanced mobility component.

    In addition, the Department has worked closely with Motability to ensure that those claimants who no longer meet the criteria for the Motability Scheme are supported through the transitional period. For most of these claimants who entered into their first lease agreement with Motability before January 2013, Motability will provide transitional support of £2,000. This will enable many claimants to continue to meet their mobility needs by purchasing a used car. For claimants who entered into their first lease agreement with the scheme after January 2013 and up to December 2013, Motability will supply transitional support of £1,000 to assist with mobility costs.

  • Nicola Blackwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Nicola Blackwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicola Blackwood on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how much of his Department’s funding allocated in the Spending Review 2015 will be for research and development expenditure up to 2020.

    Brandon Lewis

    The 2015 Spending Review set out settlements for departments and showed how the Government will deliver on its priorities, eliminate the deficit, and deliver security and opportunity for working people.

    Final decisions on internal departmental funding allocations for future years, including for research and development, have not yet been made.

  • Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart C. McDonald on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many refused asylum seekers have been supported in Scotland under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for (a) up to two years, (b) more than two years and (c) more than four years.

    James Brokenshire

    The table below shows the number of failed asylum seekers that have been supported under section 4 for the requested periods. This data defines refused asylum seekers as those who have been found to not require international protection and have received a final decision on their application.

    Time on Support Count

    Under 2 Years 52

    Under 4 Years 26

    Over 4 Years 2

    Total = 80