Category: Speeches

  • Lord Crisp – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Crisp – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2015-11-30.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the current visa categories and visa application processes to help foster international research collaborations, in particular in the health and science sectors.

    Lord Bates

    Our current immigration policies, categories and processes already explicitly take account of the needs of academics, scientists and researchers. We have consistently protected and enhanced the treatment of these roles in the immigration system, even whilst restricting migration in other spheres.

    In Tier 2, the skilled work route, we have given PhD level roles, which include academics, scientists and researchers, higher priority when allocating places within the annual limit and relaxed rules relating to recruitment and settlement. We have introduced the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) route for world leaders in science, engineering, humanities, the arts and digital technology, and several universities and research organisations are making use of this route. The Tier 5 (Temporary Work) route contains provisions to enable sponsored researchers to participate in international research collaborations, and for overseas medical and dental post-graduates to undertake training in the UK.

    The immigration system also supports the health sector, with several health professions, including doctors in emergency medicine, included on the Shortage Occupation List (SOL). Nurses have been added to the SOL as a temporary measure, pending a full review of the evidence by the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC).

    We keep all immigration routes under review to ensure they are working effectively in line with the Government’s migration objectives. For the future, we have commissioned the MAC to advise on restricting Tier 2 to genuine skills shortages and jobs which require highly-specialised experts, but with sufficient flexibility to include high value roles and key public service workers. We await the MAC’s report with interest and will consider it carefully before making any significant changes.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what forecast he has made of the change in population in each London borough up to 2030.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The latest Office for National Statistics population projection for London Boroughs are included in the 2012-based Subnational Population Projections for England, which provide figures for years up to 2037. The projections are published at:

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/snpp/sub-national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/stb-2012-based-snpp.html#tab-Key-Points

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken better to enforce compliance with the Schools Admissions Code among religiously selective schools, in the light of the findings of the report by the Fair Admissions Campaign and British Humanist Association, An Unholy Mess.

    Lord Nash

    Admission authorities for all state-funded schools, including schools with a religious designation, are required to comply with the mandatory provisions of the School Admissions Code and other admissions law.

    Where an objection is made to the Schools Adjudicator, if the arrangements are found to be unfair or fail to comply with the Code, the admission authority must make changes to ensure their arrangements are compliant without undue delay. Where an admission authority fails to implement decisions of the adjudicator, the Secretary of State may direct the admission authority to do so.

    We continue to keep the Code under review, and, where we consider any changes are necessary to make the admissions system work more effectively for parents, these will be subject to a full public consultation.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Rotheram on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy of the UK leaving the EU.

    Mr David Gauke

    As the Chancellor has said, a UK exit from the EU would be a long, costly and messy divorce. The finance Ministers and central bank governors of the G20 concluded at the weekend that a British exit would cause an economic shock not just to the UK but to Europe and the world. What people are asking for in this referendum campaign is a serious, sober and principled assessment from the Government setting out the facts. The Treasury will publish a comprehensive analysis of our membership of a reformed EU and the alternatives, including the long-term economic costs and benefits of EU membership and the risks associated with an exit before 23 June.

  • Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Maria Eagle on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what support her Department provides to 16 to 18 year old pupils eligible for the pupil premium to ensure that they can access sixth form education if it is not available in their local authority area.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    The statutory responsibility for transport to education and training for 16- to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, including those students who attend school or college in a neighbouring local authority area. Most students receive a discount or concession but it is for local authorities, along with local transport providers and schools or colleges, to decide whether to provide support and which students are eligible. These decisions are best made locally in light of local needs, the resources available, and other local circumstances.

    The 16 to 19 Bursary Fund is also available to support young people with the costs associated with attending education or training, and transport is the biggest single area of expenditure for which this fund is used. Schools and colleges are responsible for deciding how to distribute their bursary allocations to students, and for establishing what criteria to use.

    Local authorities are encouraged to take travelling times into account when considering post-16 transport arrangements. There is an expectation of 75 minutes as a maximum travelling time each way to and from school or college but this is not a mandatory requirement.

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and consolidate landlord and tenant legislation.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The Government has already introduced important reform to landlord and tenant legislation through the Housing and Planning Bill. Legislation is always kept under review given the complexity of issues in this area.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether account is being taken in the proposed sale of the Land Registry of whether interested bidders are based in tax havens; what assessment his Department made in the awarding of such contracts of the competitive advantage given to companies based in tax havens; and what recent discussions he has had with his Ministerial colleagues on banning companies based in tax havens from purchasing assets sold during privatisations.

    Anna Soubry

    No decision on the future of Land Registry has been taken and as such, no bids have been received. The consultation on moving operations of Land Registry to the private sector closed on 26 May and Government are currently reviewing the responses. Until this is completed, no decision will be made.

  • Natalie McGarry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Natalie McGarry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Natalie McGarry on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make it her policy to include Scottish universities in the Government’s tier 4 Visa Pilot.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Tier 4 visa pilot has been introduced to test the benefits of a differentiated approach within the education sector on the basis of compliance with immigration sponsorship requirements.

    The pilot is deliberately narrow in scope, with institutions selected due to their consistently low visa refusal rates. This is to ensure that the outcomes can be adequately monitored, whilst minimising the risk of unintended consequences, before considering rolling-out the scheme more widely.

    Should the pilot be successful, the Home Office will liaise with stakeholders, including Scottish universities, over plans for extending the scheme.

  • Lord Browne of Belmont – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Browne of Belmont – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Browne of Belmont on 2016-10-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the estimated (1) numeracy, and (2) literacy, rate among prisoners in each of the last three years.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    Prisons should be places of safety and reform. I am determined to make sure that we achieve better outcomes for all prisoners including in education, and I want to see much clearer accountability for prison governors for the education delivered in prison and the results prisoners achieve. Mandatory education assessments were introduced for the first time in August 2014, for all new receptions to custody in England. This shows that in the year to September 2015 fewer than half the people entering prisons had basic standards of English and maths, and around a third had identified learning difficulties or disabilities. Data prior to August 2014 is not available.

    Prison education is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  • Stewart Jackson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    Stewart Jackson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Jackson on 2015-11-03.

    To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the efficacy of removing the current policy of absent votes on demand in favour of the previous absent votes criteria for the purpose of preventing electoral fraud; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Gary Streeter

    In January 2014, the Electoral Commission published its review of electoral fraud in the UK, which followed research and wide public consultation on a number of proposals for reducing absent voting vulnerabilities, including reversing the current availability of postal voting on demand without a reason or attestation in Great Britain.

    While some respondents to the Commission’s consultation supported restricting the availability of postal voting on demand to address the risk of electoral fraud, others expressed concern that it would reduce convenience and could mean that some electors would be unable to vote. Respondents also suggested that restricting the availability of postal voting on demand would be disproportionate to the number and scale of proven cases of postal voting fraud.

    The Commission’s review concluded that restricting the availability of postal voting would remove the freedom for electors to choose a convenient and, for the vast majority, secure, method of voting and on balance did not support changing the availability of postal voting in Great Britain. At the May 2015 UK Parliamentary general election postal votes were issued to around 7.6 million electors in Great Britain, representing nearly 17% of the total electorate. At present, the Commission is aware of 22 cases of alleged electoral fraud at the May 2015 polls involving postal votes. The Commission continues to monitor data about cases of alleged postal voting fraud, and will keep its assessment of the impact of restricting the availability of postal voting under review in light of any new evidence which becomes available.

    The Commission’s review also considered whether there was a case for further restricting the availability of proxy voting by requiring all proxy applications to be attested; limiting proxy voting to a smaller range of categories of need, such as special category electors; or imposing further limits on the number of electors for whom an individual could be appointed to act as a proxy. Respondents to the Commission’s consultation expressed concern that such restrictions could have an impact on voter participation, especially for disabled voters or those outside the country at the time of the election for whom proxy voting might be the only way in which they are able to vote. On balance, the Commission did not support placing further restrictions on the availability of proxy voting.