Blog

  • Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each year in which a grant was provided to the group Action on Smoking and Health, how much (1) was spent against the original grant, (2) constituted underspend, and (3) was returned to the Department of Health.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

    The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

    ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

    The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

  • Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 21 December 2015 (HL4603 and HL4606), whether they plan to investigate the activities of the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in providing the secretariat to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health and the use of public grants for lobbying activities in the light of the fact that the Department of Health has received 90 items of correspondence from the APPG originating from a postal or email address belonging to ASH in the last five years.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

    The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

    ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

    The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

  • Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lucas on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of who now owns the National Gallery database of images, and of the arrangements in place to protect the database of the National Gallery from being exploited to the prejudice of that institution.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The National Gallery operates at Arm’s length from DCMS, and as such has responsibility for its own image licensing arrangements. Ownership of the National Gallery database of images rests with, and has always rested with, the Gallery itself. The arrangements between the National Gallery and Corbis in relation to the licensing of National Gallery images came to an end on 31 August 2008. When the arrangements terminated all National Gallery images were returned to the Gallery.

  • Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lucas on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the announcement of the sale of Corbis, Corbis Motion and Veer, what assessment they have made of how the interests of the UK and of the National Gallery, whose picture bank was put into data files and a database by Corbis, have been protected.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The National Gallery operates at Arm’s length from DCMS, and as such has responsibility for its own mage licensing arrangements. The arrangements between the National Gallery and Corbis in relation to the licensing of National Gallery images came to an end on 31 August 2008. When the arrangements terminated all National Gallery images were returned to the Gallery. As a result, the sale of Corbis, Corbis Motion and Veer, has no implications for the National Gallery. Ownership of the National Gallery database of images rests with, and has always rested with, the Gallery itself.

  • Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Burt of Solihull on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that regional schools commissioners are accountable for poor school sixth-form provision in their areas.

    Lord Nash

    Regional Schools Commissioners are accountable for monitoring the performance of school sixth-forms in their areas when they are part of an existing academy.

    Decisions regarding intervention action are informed by the academy’s performance against minimum standards, including the 16-19 minimum standards, and Ofsted judgements, as well as local intelligence.

    In the past few months, we have begun to review the post-16 education and training landscape through a programme of area reviews. Through these reviews, colleges, local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, and commissioners (RSCs, as well as FE and Sixth Form College Commissioners) scrutinise all local post-16 provision and are developing recommendations to secure high quality provision for students and employers which is delivered through a financially viable and resilient college sector.

  • Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Burt of Solihull on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce local outcome agreements for the Adult Skills Budget in devolved areas.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The conditions under which we will devolve funding to combined authorities are set out in the relevant devolution agreements. When funding has been devolved the Combined Authority will be responsible for allocations to providers and the outcomes to be achieved, consistent with statutory entitlements. Government will not seek to second guess these decisions, but it will set proportionate requirements about outcome information to be collected in order to allow students to make informed choices.

  • Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Burt of Solihull on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the timescale for carrying out reviews of post-16 education and training institutions.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Individual area reviews are expected to take about four months, the timescale being dependent on the number of colleges and complexity of the local issues involved in each area. The overall review process has been divided into five waves of area reviews and is scheduled to be completed by March 2017.

  • Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have labelled the national minimum wage of £7.20 an hour as the national living wage” when it falls below the UK Living Wage and London Living Wage set by the Living Wage Foundation.”

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The National Living Wage will come into force on 1 April 2016. We estimate that a full-time National Minimum Wage worker will earn over £4,400 more by 2020 from the National Living Wage in cash terms.

    This Government is committed to improving living standards, particularly for the low paid. Guided by a proportion of median earnings which leading experts recommend, the National Living Wage recognizes the balance needed of an affordable rate for businesses with achieving a significant increase in minimum pay.

    The Low Pay Commission will continue to make recommendations on the appropriate rate for the National Living Wage going forward, to make sure that wages rise to reward workers while considering the impact on the economy.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-01-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average length of time to wait is for a reconsideration of a decision by (a) his Department and (b) a tribunal hearing in (i) Brighton and Hove and (ii) the UK in the latest period for which figures are available.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The only published statistics in relation to reconsideration clearance times in the UK are in the link below:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mandatory-reconsiderations-of-dwp-benefit-decisions-data-to-october-2014

    Information is not available in relation to Brighton and Hove.

    The latest information in relation to clearance times for appeals in the UK is in the link below:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-and-gender-recognition-certificate-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2015 – see Table 4.3

    Information for Brighton and Hove is as follows:

    April- September 2015

    Brighton

    20 wks

    UK

    18 wks

    Source: SSCS Reports September 2016

    “

  • Chris Law – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Chris Law – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Law on 2016-01-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which categories of young people will be exempt from the new restrictions to housing benefit eligibility.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Removal of automatic housing support for 18 – 21 year olds, announced in the Summer Budget 2015, will be introduced in April 2017. The Department is liaising with a range of key stakeholders as we develop the detail of the policy and once this work is complete we will bring forward detailed proposals.