Blog

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans the Government has to produce further guidance on the definition of extremism used in her Department’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, Cm 9148, published in October 2015.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    Vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, in particular mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs within the Counter-Extremism Strategy definition of extremism is consistent with the incitement provisions within the Public Order Act 1986, in particular Part 3 aimed at those who stir up racial or religious hatred.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values. But we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    Government has engaged widely on the Counter-Extremism Strategy, and continues to engage with partners – including faith groups and communities on the implementation of the Strategy’s measures.

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what plans her Department has to include within its proposals for registration and inspection of out-of-school education settings (a) annual holiday clubs and (b) communal religious groups.

    Nick Gibb

    The Government wants children to be educated in a safe environment where they are not exposed to hateful and extremist views that undermine British values.

    The call for evidence on out-of-school settings described:

    (a) Supplementary schools as settings which offer support or education in addition to mainstream or core learning, and which operate after school hours and on the weekends; and

    (b) Tuition centres as settings which could often be used in place of mainstream education and support home education, and which can operate at any time of day.

    The proposals are about making sure that where there are concerns raised by parents and others about issues of extremism, child cruelty or inappropriate teaching in unregulated settings, the Government can take action to protect children and empower parents.

    The call for evidence defined intensive education as anything which entails an individual child attending a setting for more than betweensix toeight hours a week. Such settings would be required to register with their local authority and be eligible for inspection where concerns were reported.

    Settings providing ad hoc classes or regular classes below a specified time threshold would not be captured by the proposal. One-week holiday clubs and Sunday schools would not, therefore, be covered. The proposal is intended to capture settings where children receive intensive education, regardless of faith or whether provided by a community group.

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to her Department’s consultation, Out-of-school education settings: call for evidence, published on 26 November 2015, what definition her Department uses for (a) supplementary schools, (b) tuition centres, (c) intensive education and (d) the eight hours threshold for inspection.

    Nick Gibb

    The Government wants children to be educated in a safe environment where they are not exposed to hateful and extremist views that undermine British values.

    The call for evidence on out-of-school settings described:

    (a) Supplementary schools as settings which offer support or education in addition to mainstream or core learning, and which operate after school hours and on the weekends; and

    (b) Tuition centres as settings which could often be used in place of mainstream education and support home education, and which can operate at any time of day.

    The proposals are about making sure that where there are concerns raised by parents and others about issues of extremism, child cruelty or inappropriate teaching in unregulated settings, the Government can take action to protect children and empower parents.

    The call for evidence defined intensive education as anything which entails an individual child attending a setting for more than betweensix toeight hours a week. Such settings would be required to register with their local authority and be eligible for inspection where concerns were reported.

    Settings providing ad hoc classes or regular classes below a specified time threshold would not be captured by the proposal. One-week holiday clubs and Sunday schools would not, therefore, be covered. The proposal is intended to capture settings where children receive intensive education, regardless of faith or whether provided by a community group.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, if she will take steps to increase the reporting of gender balance on corporate boards.

    Caroline Dinenage

    This Government is determined to make sure all women can fulfil their potential. This has been a crucial part of the success Lord Davies had in increasing the number of women on boards. We will continue to work with international leaders Cranfield University to ensure continued transparency on this agenda.

    There are also other reporting measures which are in place which allow us to get a clearer picture of where there are issues and help employers identify where action needs to be taken. We will be introducing regulations that require large employers to report on gender pay gaps and differential bonus payments. Alongside this, as part of the BIS Narrative Reporting Requirements, FTSE listed companies need to report on gender diversity at Board and senior management level.

    These measures have proven to be effective as there are more women than ever on boards, and we are committed to continuing with them in order to see further progress.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what recent discussions she has had with businesses on increasing the gender balance on corporate boards.

    Caroline Dinenage

    I have met with many business representatives since taking on the role of Minister for Women and Equalities and always ensure I use these opportunities to raise the issue of achieving a better gender balance on boards. More recently (October 2015) I spoke at the launch of Lord Davies’s final report where I was able to engage with a broad range of stakeholders who all have a key role to play in this agenda including Executive Search Firms, Chairs and Investors.

    Lord Davies’s collaborative approach, which engaged all parties, was crucial in achieving the unprecedented number of women on boards we now have in the FTSE 350. The Government looks forward to continuing this approach with the new review on the executive pipeline.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Highways Act 1835 to allow for the use of self-balancing scooters, segways and z-boards on roads.

    Andrew Jones

    To maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading location to test, develop, and use connected and automated vehicle (CAV) technologies, the Department for Transport is planning a wider review of domestic regulations by Summer2017. The review is at an early stage.

    While the Highways Act 1835 will form part of the review, decisions have yet to be taken as to which regulatory changes will be necessary to support CAV technologies, or if the review will cover other forms of transport such as Segways, or so-called ‘hoverboards’, ‘balancing scooters’ and ‘z-boards’, all of which may already be used on private land.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will reduce the level of VAT applicable to construction companies involved in the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use.

    Mr David Gauke

    The sale of, or long lease in, non-residential buildings that have been converted to residential use is, subject to certain criteria, zero-rated for VAT.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will remove the fuel duty escalator on liquefied petroleum gas.

    Damian Hinds

    The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) differential reduces by 1 penny per litre per year, which is a continuation of the approach set out by the two previous Administrations. This reflects the greater natural environmental damage caused by LPG compared with other road fuel gases as outlined in the 2003 Alternative Fuels Framework. However, like all taxes, fuel duties are kept under review with the Government announcing any changes at fiscal events.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will take steps to establish an independent body to monitor the salaries of council staff.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Ministers have taken a number of steps to increase the transparency and accountability of local decisions on the pay and reward of council staff. This action has helped ensure that local people have the information they need to hold councils to account.

    Local elected members need to make sure that decisions about the remuneration of senior staff are clearly in the interest of local taxpayers, and that they operate to the same standards of restraint as the rest of the public sector.

  • Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Ben Howlett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to ensure that decisions of the Independent Appeals Panel do not allocate places in excess of a school’s planned admission numbers.

    Nick Gibb

    All parents are able to express preferences for at least three schools when applying for a school place. When parents are refused a place for their child, it is important that they are given the opportunity to appeal this decision.

    The appeal panel should consider whether the school’s admission arrangements were lawful, have been properly applied and balance the effect on the school of admitting another child against the parents’ reasons for wanting their child to attend the school.

    When considering an appeal for an infant class, however, appeal panels have less scope to admit over its admissions number. Legislation limits the size of an infant class to 30 pupils per school teacher and appeals for such classes can only be upheld in very limited circumstances.