UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2014

  • Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2014-03-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that all maintained and academy schools in receipt of the pupil premium use the funds directly to support disadvantaged pupils.

    Lord Nash

    Headteachers of maintained schools and academies are expected to use their professional judgement in determining which well-evidenced interventions to invest in to raise the attainment of their disadvantaged pupils. A headteacher may decide to spend some of their pupil premium on whole school interventions, such as improving the quality of teacher feedback, as the evidence shows that this has a significant impact on the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.

    While headteachers have this freedom, they are also held accountable for the impact of this additional funding in three different ways. Firstly, the performance tables set out the attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils and the gap between them and their peers. Secondly, Ofsted inspects the achievement of all pupils in a school, and where disadvantaged pupils are making insufficient progress, inspectors are likely to grade a school as requiring improvement and will recommend that the school undertakes a pupil premium review. Thirdly, schools are required to publish online how much pupil premium funding they receive, how they have used this funding and an evaluation of the impact that it has had.

  • Adrian Sanders – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Adrian Sanders – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Adrian Sanders on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has held with the Russian government on the right to self-determination of people in the North Caucasus.

    Mr David Lidington

    I have not specifically discussed the right to self-determination of people in the North Caucasus with the Russian government. However, this Government regularly raises concerns about the human rights situation in Russia with the Russian government. Concerns about the human rights situation in the North Caucasus were included in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 2013 Annual Human Rights Report.

  • Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on 2014-03-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the provision in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, whereby complaints against claims management companies can be made to the Legal Services Ombudsman, will be implemented.

    Lord Faulks

    The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 provided the necessary enabling powers to put in place the funding arrangements for the Legal Ombudsman to deal with complaints against claims management companies. These provisions were commenced on 21 March 2014. This included a power for the Lord Chancellor to make Regulations to charge fees to recover the costs he has incurred in meeting the expenditure of the Legal Ombudsman in relation to claims management complaints.

    Section 161 of the Legal Services Act 2007 will, once commenced, extend the Legal Ombudsman’s remit to deal with complaints against claims management companies. We are continuing to work towards commencing section 161 of the 2007 Act, but prior to this we must ensure that all the necessary legislative arrangements are in place. This includes consulting on the structure of the Lord Chancellor’s cost recovery fee and drafting the fee Regulations, which must then be approved by Parliament. At the same time, the Legal Ombudsman is working on the operational arrangements for taking these complaints, and thus we will deliver this new regime as soon as possible.

  • Andrew Stephenson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Stephenson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Stephenson on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of people in (a) Pendle constituency, (b) East Lancashire and (c) the North West are registered organ donors.

    Jane Ellison

    The information requested is in the following table:

    Proportion of people in Pendle constituency, East Lancashire and the North West who are registered organ donors as at 10 June 2014

    Area

    Number on the Organ Donor Register

    Population estimate1

    % on the Organ Donor Register

    Pendle Constituency

    22,071

    89,613

    24.6%

    East Lancashire2

    137,865

    530,605

    26.0%

    North West 3

    2,083,446

    7,084,337

    29.4%

    1 Source: Office for National Statistics mid-2012 population estimates

    2 East Lancashire comprising the districts of Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

    3 This comprises:

    Ashton, Leigh and Wigan, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Central and Eastern Cheshi, Cumbria, East Lancashire, Halton and St Helens, Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, North Lancashire, Oldham, Salford, Sefton, Stockport, Tameside and Glossop, Trafford, Warrington, Western Cheshire, Wirral

    Source: NHS Blood and Transplant

  • Julian Sturdy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Julian Sturdy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Sturdy on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the prevalence of wind turbine developers using the Community Right to Build scheme to circumvent the local planning process.

    Kris Hopkins

    The Community Right to Build allows local communities to undertake small-scale, site-specific, community-led developments. It may only be used by community organisations in which local people in the relevant neighbourhood area have a majority of the voting rights and have the majority on the board of directors or governing body of the organisation, and, include different people from at least 10 different addresses within the area. This means the Community Right to Build cannot be used by property developers, including wind turbine developers, to gain planning permission for their development proposal – unless that development is something that the community wishes to see and which the community initiates.

    Proposals that require an Environmental Impact Assessment or are likely to have significant effects on a site protected under the Habitats Regulations are not eligible to use the Community Right to Build. Where proposals are eligible they will be tested by an independent examiner to see that they are appropriate in the light of national planning policy and generally conform with the strategic policies of the Local Plan for the area and any neighbourhood plans that are in force.

    The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that local councils should design their policies to ensure the adverse impacts of renewable energy developments are addressed satisfactorily. To help implement the environmental balance expected by the Framework, we issued new planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy last July. The guidance makes clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.

  • Peter Luff – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Peter Luff – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Luff on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many of the 90 UK personnel plan to provide mentoring and related support to the Afghan national army officer academy he expects (a) to be female and (b) to be able to provide gender-sensitive training.

    Mr Mark Francois

    The UK currently provides six female mentors to the Afghan National Army Officer Academy’s (ANAOA) female training platoon. One additional female mentor is involved in the wider training programme at the Academy.

    Many of the mentor posts at the ANAOA are reserved for male Service personnel, owing to the cultural sensibilities of our Afghan partners. We will continue to seek opportunities to deploy females into other mentoring posts to demonstrate to the Afghan National Army (ANA) that Servicewomen are exemplars and can be employed across a wide range of roles.

    In relation to gender-sensitive training, one of the ANAOA’s core training objectives is: “Comply with ANA gender integration/equality and diversity policy”. The course covers international law, human rights and women’s rights, Islamic attitudes (including towards women) and the rights of the family, focusing on the role and equality of women in contemporary Afghan society.

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, with reference to the Answer of 3 September 2012, Official Report, columns 93-4W, on electoral register: fraud, what assessment he has made of the reasons there have been no successful prosecutions for postal vote fraud since 2011.

    Greg Clark

    The Government has made no such assessment.

  • Annette Brooke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Annette Brooke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Annette Brooke on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the Demos report, Behind the Screen, to increase uptake of cervical screening.

    Jane Ellison

    We welcome the Demos report Behind the screen: “Revealing the true cost of cervical cancer…”, which we have discussed in detail with Public Health England (PHE). On the specific recommendations in the report:

    – it is NHS Cervical Screening Programme policy that general practitioners should offer ‘on the spot’ cervical screening tests to women during other appointments, as long as they are overdue. In 2012-13, more than 500,000 were taken without an immediate invitation;

    – on awareness campaigns, PHE is looking at a number of other cancers for potential local pilot tests within the Be Clear on Cancer programme, and a decision will be made later in the summer;

    – a strategy on using celebrities or religious leaders to improve coverage would need to be tied in with any overall marketing campaign, but previous experience shows that this only has a short term effect and needs frequent repetition. The publicity around Jade Goody, diagnosis, illness and subsequent death, brought in many under-screened women, but this dissipated within months following Jade’s death at the end of March 2009; and

    – PHE has funded research on the effects of mother/daughter relationships on uptake of screening and vaccination, including in lower socio-economic groups. PHE would be very happy to discuss this with Demos and Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust.

    We know that for a number of reasons coverage rates amongst women have fallen slightly over the last decade, as highlighted further in the report, and a considerable amount of work is underway to tackle this decline. The third annual report of our Cancer Outcomes Strategy said that a priority for 2014-15 will be to improve screening uptake amongst disadvantaged groups. PHE is undertaking analysis on local screening programmes with poor coverage, and will work with them to develop action plans to increase coverage in their local areas.

    Specifically on younger women, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme has commissioned a £1 million study to determine which interventions are effective at increasing screening uptake amongst women who are receiving their first invitation from the programme. We also know that coverage rates are lower in certain communities. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes have worked with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust to host two events looking at challenges to screening uptake among black and minority ethnic communities, and a third event is due to be held in Birmingham in July 2014. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes has also funded an award winning Lesbian and Gay Foundation’s Are You Ready for Your Screen Test? campaign targeting lesbian and bisexual women to raise awareness about the need to attend for regular cervical screening tests.

    Regarding costs discussed in the report, we will ensure that the report is sent to colleagues in NHS England who are responsible for commissioning the cervical screening service. The report will also be discussed at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening in the autumn.

    Acceptable and achievable standards for cervical screening coverage rates are being discussed as part of the update of the cervical screening service specification attached to the NHS public health functions agreement: Public health functions to be exercised by NHS England (Section 7a agreement) for 2015-16.

    We are fully supportive of Cervical Screening Awareness Week (CSA Week) and the work Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust does, who I met recently.

    I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 11 June to draw their attention to CSA Week, update them on national and local screening statistics and ask for their support in promoting take-up of screening. In addition, the Department and PHE promoted CSA Week on social media.

  • Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Iain McKenzie on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate he has made of the number of houses in the UK that have solar panels.

    Gregory Barker

    The latest published statistics show that as at the end of December 2013, there were 427,897 solar panel installations on domestic properties, representing 97 per cent of the total number of solar panels installed in GB (442,102).

    Statistics to the end of March 2014 will be published at 09:30am on Wednesday 23rd April 2014 on the DECC Statistics webpage:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/sub-regional-feed-in-tariffs-confirmed-on-the-cfr-statistics.

    “

  • Robert Syms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Robert Syms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Syms on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how much in public subsidy he expects to allocate to the proposed wind farm at Navitus Bay.

    Gregory Barker

    The Government set out the Allocation Framework for Contracts for Difference (CfDs) on 13 May 2014, which has the potential to improve value for money, encourage new entry and drive innovation.

    Indicative CfD budgets will be published in July. CfD allocation rounds will then determine which projects are successful and receive CfD contracts and at what level of support. It is not possible to say in advance which projects will receive support and at what level.

    Offshore wind projects, classified as ‘less established’ technologies, are able to receive support in this Delivery Plan period (2014/15-2018/19) at the administrative strike prices published on 4 December 2013, unless there is insufficient budget in a CfD allocation round to satisfy all bids then an auction (competitive allocation) will apply. Those technologies would then have to compete against each other on price whereby each project is paid the clearing price for its delivery year within the auction, capped at its administrative strike price.