UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which railway stations currently owned by Network Rail are being considered for potential sale or new concessions.

    Claire Perry

    Network Rail is exploring new models for the management and ownership of its 18 managed stations with the goal of bringing improvements for both passengers and the communities they serve. They have engaged Citigroup as advisors to consider a range of potential options. No decisions have yet been taken and no estimate of the potential value of these stations has been made as part of this work. Citigroup were appointed following a competitive tender process, and the details of their fee are commercially confidential.

    Network Rail expect that this work will be presented to their Board by the end of 2016.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment she has made of which of her Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

    George Eustice

    The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

    The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

  • Mike Weir – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Mike Weir – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Weir on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the number of future pensioners who will be eligible for payments by the pension schemes of abolished non-departmental public bodies.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Departmental preparations for the reform of non-departmental public bodies take account of the Checklist for Departments published by the Cabinet Office, which includes advice on pensions.

    In the past five years, the Department has reformed three bodies which employed staff.

    In two cases, staff pensions were provided by the Civil Service Pension Scheme, which has established procedures in place for identifying pensioners as they become eligible, and ensuring that payments are processed on time:

    The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was abolished on 31 July 2012 and employed 7,652 full time equivalent staff, all of whom were civil servants;

    The Independent Living Fund legally closed on 30 June 2015, however a small residual team of 15 staff was retained until 30 September to deal with any residual closure issues. It had previously employed 99.5 full time equivalent staff.

    In April 2015, the Remploy business was sold to a new company outside Government control. The majority of its employees transferred to that company and left the Remploy Pension Scheme at the time. The pension scheme continues to be managed by its trustees and the scheme administrators, who remain responsible for identifying pensioners and ensuring they are paid appropriately once they become eligible. At 1 January 2016, the Remploy Pension Scheme had approximately 18,000 members, of whom over 9,500 were deferred members and thus potential future pensioners. From 1 April 2016, my Department is now the Principal Employer for this scheme.

  • The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 27 April (HL7764), whether or not European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c, which requires warning systems for any unsafe operating system, applies to engine oil that leaks onto hot aircraft engines over which cabin bleed air” is drawn.”

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c does not require this. However the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standard for engine certification, CS-E 510, requires that a failure analysis and safety assessment is conducted by the engine manufacturer to show that hazardous concentration of toxic products will not enter the cabin bleed air.

    EU airlines are legally required to report any potential safety incident including where fumes or smoke are detected on board an aircraft. Although these incidents are rare, these reports are taken very seriously and reviewed thoroughly to identify any safety issues or trends.

    Passenger and crew safety is of paramount importance. The Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority are constantly working to enhance safety standards.

  • Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people working for her Department or its executive agencies on a (a) directly employed, (b) agency or (c) outsourced basis are paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation; and how many of those people are employed on zero-hours contracts.

    Sarah Newton

    All permanent members of staff directly employed by the Home Office and its agencies are paid the Living Wage Foundation rates or above. The Home Office and its agencies do not retain any directly employed staff on zero-hour contracts.

    All temporary agency staff are employed in accordance with the Agency Workers Regulations which ensures parity with directly employed staff after 12 weeks. Starting pay rates comply with the requirements of the current Government Living Wage legislation; this is a contractual obligation on the supplier and is monitored through contract compliance mechanisms.

    The Home Office only requires its outsourced contractors to comply with the legal minimum standards of pay of their staff as set out in the Government National Living Wage legislation; again this is a contractual obligation on the supplier and is monitored through contract compliance mechanisms and annually through out supplier assurance programme.

    The Home Office does not however require outsourced contractors to pay the Living Wage Foundation rates or requires or monitors that such outsourced contractors do not employ staff on zero hours contracts.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the effect of the level of parental contributions required to fund extended school activities on participation of pupils pupils from low-income families in such activities.

    Edward Timpson

    We want to ensure that all young people get the best start in life, with the opportunity to receive the knowledge and skills, the right advice at the right time, and great, challenging life-shaping experiences that will ensure their future success. We know that effective schools personalise their support for disadvantaged pupils, which can include the use of extended school activities. Schools are free to use the funding they receive, including through the pupil premium, to offer these activities. We have committed to protecting the pupil premium at current rates for the duration of this Parliament, providing £2.5billion of additional funding this year alone to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.

    The Department for Education does not collect information on the amount of funding schools receive from parental contributions for extended school activities or how this affects levels of participation in such activities. It is for schools to set their charging and remission policy. Any charges for extended services cannot exceed the cost of the provision, and in setting their charging policy schools can determine the circumstances where they will remit or partially remit any charges.

  • Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many suicide attempts were recorded by health bodies in England for each year from 1995 to 2015; what that number was as a proportion of the population; what the ethnic backgrounds were of those people attempting suicide; and how many of those people were previously known to mental health services.

    Alistair Burt

    In 2012 the Department announced investment of over £1.5 million over three years on suicide prevention research and development.

    Data on the funding allocated to suicide prevention is not available from 1995. The tables below show the funding that was allocated from Department of Health programme budgets to suicide prevention between 2011/12 and 2015/16 and self-harm prevention from 2012/13 – 2015/16. Prior to this, funding allocated to suicide prevention was held within broader mental health strategy budgets.

    Funding allocated to suicide prevention between 2011/12 and 2015/16

    Year

    Funding allocation

    2011/12

    £75,000

    2012/13

    £100,000

    2013/14

    £100,000

    2014/15

    £130,000 *

    2015/16

    £90,000

    Total

    £495,000

    * Includes £70,000 allocated by the Department to Public Health England to publish Help is at Hand, suicide bereavement support document.

    Funding allocated to self-harm prevention between 2012/13 and 2015/16

    Year

    Funding allocation

    2012/13

    £330,000

    2013/14

    £330,000

    2014/15

    £330,000

    2015/16

    £330,000

    Total

    £1,320,000

    Source: Department of Health

    Information on the number of suicide attempts recorded by health bodies in England is not held centrally.

  • Joan Ryan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Joan Ryan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2015-11-23.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions the Financial Conduct Authority has had with the Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority on the use of the financial services messaging platform Symphony.

    Harriett Baldwin

    This is an operational matter for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), who are operationally independent from Government.

    The question has been passed on to the FCA. The FCA will reply directly to the Rt Hon Joan Ryan by letter. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  • Jeremy Lefroy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jeremy Lefroy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Lefroy on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to recover costs from overseas patients and their insurers for NHS treatment.

    Alistair Burt

    National Health Service hospitals have a legal duty to make representations and recover funds from those overseas visitors who are not exempt from charge for their hospital treatment; this should be from the patient directly or via their insurance company.

    The Department’s Visitor and Migrant National Health Service Cost Recovery Programme aims to ensure that the NHS receives a fair contribution for the cost of healthcare it provides to non-United Kingdom residents and improve the amount of costs recovered from them or their home countries, to ensure the NHS is sustainable.

    Since the launch of its implementation plan in July 2014 the Cost Recovery Programme has achieved much progress including:

    – the launch of the European Health Insurance Card reporting incentive scheme in October 2014 to improve the reporting of EHIC details of visitors and students from the European Economic Area (EEA) who access NHS care, for which the UK is entitled to reimbursement;

    – updated Charging Regulations from April 2015, reducing the number of exemption from charge categories for non-residents and realigning the Regulations to the principle that the NHS is a residency-based healthcare system;

    – requiring chargeable patients from outside the EEA to be charged at 150% of national tariff, in tandem with the launch of a risk sharing arrangement with commissioners, thereby encouraging providers to both identify and recover costs from these patients to access the extra funding available; and

    – the introduction of the health surcharge in April 2015 which now means nearly all individuals who require a visa to remain in the UK for more than six month’s pay an annual surcharge as a contribution towards their healthcare costs.

    Furthermore, those with outstanding debts to the NHS of £1,000 or more and who are subject to immigration control can, since 2011, have applications for new visas or extensions of stay refused because of that debt, to encourage them to pay it.

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-29.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what safeguards are in place to prevent children either never going to school or going missing from school.

    Lord Nash

    The law provides a number of safeguards to ensure that all children receive a suitable full-time education. These are set out in Chapters I and II of Part VI of the Education Act 1996, and include:

    • a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to establish, as far as it is possible to do so, the identities of children of compulsory school age in their area who are not receiving suitable education (Section 436A);

    • a duty on local authorities to arrange suitable education for all children of compulsory school age who may not for any period receive it, unless such arrangements are made for them (Section 19);

    • a duty on parents to ensure that their child of compulsory school age is receiving suitable full-time education, either at school or otherwise (Section 7);

    • provision for a local authority to issue a School Attendance Order to a parent where it is not satisfied that a child of compulsory age is receiving a suitable education (Section 437); and

    • provision for the prosecution of a parent who has failed to secure their child’s regular attendance at school (Section 444).

    Statutory guidance requires local authorities to have robust procedures and policies in place to enable them to carry out their duty to identify children of compulsory school age in their area who are not receiving suitable education (Children Missing Education, 2015).

    Under the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006, schools have a duty to inform their local authority, at agreed intervals, of the details of pupils who are regularly absent from school or have missed 10 school days or more without permission. Schools must also notify the authority if a pupil is to be deleted from the admission register in certain circumstances.

    We are taking steps to ensure the system is as robust as it can be when it comes to protecting young people, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of parents to determine how and where to educate their children. The Department for Education is currently consulting on proposals to strengthen further the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 in order to require schools to inform local authorities under all grounds when a child’s name is deleted from a school register.