Tag: 2016

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps he is taking to promote a whistleblowing culture across the civil service.

    Matthew Hancock

    This Government has taken a number of steps to ensure effective whistleblowing practices are in place across Departments and to raise the profile and awareness of whilstleblowing. Updated and refreshed model whistleblowing policies are in place across all departments, providing information on sources of support available to whistleblowers, including access to employee assistance programmes, and advice on accessing legal support. In addition, we have improved support for Nominated Offices, and Departments have introduced dedicated whistleblowing hotlines and are publishing case studies on departmental intranet sites to build confidence that cases will be heard fairly and appropriately.

    The Cabinet Office has developed a new data collection tool to enable HR Directors to collect information on whistleblowing cases including how cases have been resolved, identification of systemic issues, and lessons learned. Departments are using this tool to report to their Departmental Boards, and to the Cabinet Office, on a 6 monthly basis.

    More details on action taken by specific Departments, including the first set of data collated by Departments, can be found in the Cabinet Office’s recent report to the Public Accounts Committee: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/whistleblowing-recall/written/31692.html

    “

  • Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Tomlinson on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make it her policy to contact visa and naturalisation applicants to ask those applicants to submit an up-to-date English Language Certificate if an application is to be refused solely on the grounds of the submission of an expired certificate.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For visa purposes, it is not Home Office policy to give an applicant the opportunity to submit a further document if they have provided an out of date English language certificate. Knowledge of the English language is a key requirement of the Immigration Rules which applicants are expected to comply with before they apply. The Immigration Rules specify that, where applicable, the test certificate must be within its validity date.

    For naturalisation applications, a person is allowed a period of two weeks to provide any missing information, but they would be expected to have met the language requirement before submitting an application.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-10-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ask the government of France to defer demolition of the Jungle camp at Calais, until all the children there have been moved to places of safety.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The management of the migrant camp in Calais, including any decision to dismantle it, is the responsibility of the French Government. The UK continues to work closely with the French Government at both a political and operational level on every aspect of the migrant situation in northern France.

    Although the primary responsibility for unaccompanied children in France lies with the French authorities, the Home Secretary made clear on 10 October that we will transfer as many minors as possible to the UK who are eligible under the Dublin Regulation before the camp clearance starts. The Home Secretary further emphasised that the remaining children who may be eligible to come to the UK under the Dubs amendment must be moved to safe facilities where there best interests can be properly considered.

  • John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Spellar on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his policy is on the future of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Royal Fleet Auxiliary will continue to provide front line logistical support that is scaled to meet our current and projected commitments. In addition, a shipbuilding programme is under way to deliver four TIDE Class tankers as well three new Future Solid Support Ships announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015.

  • Lord Collins of Highbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Collins of Highbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Collins of Highbury on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they made in their recent Evaluation of Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 of the evidence from the Gambling Commission that 633 cases of suspected money laundering were reported last year in the use of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals; and what conclusions they reached.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Government takes the issue of money laundering in gambling very seriously, including these cases. The Gambling Commission already requires operators to take measures to prevent money laundering through its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice – and it is currently consulting on proposed regulatory changes to strengthen the fight against crime linked to gambling. In additon, the Treasury is planning to consult on the EU’s forth Directive on Money Laundering, which brings all gambling services within scope of the money laundering requirements.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Government’s memorandum submitted to the Lords Secondary Legislation Committee on 28 January 2016, what the evidential basis is for the statement that there will be no cash losers from the reduction of the income rise disregards for tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    As announced in the combined Autumn Statement and Spending Review, the amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase within the year before their tax credit award is adjusted (the income rise disregard), will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The reduction to the income rise disregard will stop one family receiving a higher tax credit award over another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances, which makes the system fairer. The household income of families before it rises will inform how they might be effected by a reduction in the income rise disregard.

    The only people who will be affected are those who will see an income increase of more than £2,500 in-year.

    Due to the way that tax credits are calculated, the amount an award will be adjusted by – because of an increase in income – will depend upon a claimant’s individual circumstances, such as the household’s income before it rises. No one will be a cash loser because their income will have increased. As an example, for an individual with a wage of £12,000, an income increase of £2,501 would lead to an adjustment in their tax credit award of just 41 pence. An increase of less than £2,500 would see no change at all.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much subsidy was paid to the operators of the Northern rail franchise in each financial year between December 2004 and April 2016.

    Andrew Jones

    Subsidies paid from 2004 to 2008:

    2004/05 – 81.0 million (part year – December 2004 to March 2005)

    2005/06 – 278.2 million

    2006/07 – 168.5 million

    2007/08 – 119.3 million

    Figures from 2008 onwards are published on the Office of Rail and Road’s (‘ORR’) website at: http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6. 2015-16 financial information will be made available following publication of Audited Statutory Accounts.

    “

  • Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michelle Donelan on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to promote awareness among cyclists of the importance of wearing helmets and visible clothing.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The safety of vulnerable road users is a priority and we recommend that all cyclists wear clothing that makes them sufficiently visible to other road users.

    Rule 59 of the Highway Code states, “You should wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light; reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark”.

    Government policy is that cycle helmets offer a degree of protection for cyclists in the event of a fall from a bicycle and some types of collisions. In line with the Highway Code rule 59 which states “you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened” we encourage their use by all cyclists and in particular by children.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-06-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to ensure that the renegotiation of the UK-Malawi tax treaty supports development and helps tackle poverty in that country.

    Mr David Gauke

    The UK regularly reviews its treaty network and actively engages with developing countries. Discussions with Malawi over a new tax treaty began some years ago, and substantive agreement has been reached at official level. It is hoped that the treaty will be signed shortly. Although the UK’s starting point in negotiations is based closely on the OECD model double taxation convention, the Government recognises that developing countries will sometimes have different preferences, and treaties the UK has recently signed demonstrate that we are willing to accommodate at least some of those preferences as part of a balanced agreement. But the nature of the negotiating process is that it remains confidential to the two sides until the treaty is signed.

    By governing the taxation of cross-border income flows in a predictable manner and eliminating double taxation and excessive taxation, tax treaties promote international trade and investment, leading to sustainable tax revenues, which are vital in financing for development.

  • Stephen Hammond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Stephen Hammond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of increasing the penalties for mobile phone use while driving.

    Andrew Jones

    Evidence shows that hand-held mobile phone use whilst driving decreased after the legislation was introduced in 2003, and after the first increase in the penalty in 2007. I know that dangerous mobile phone use remains a key concern amongst motorists. The previous Government increased the level of fine in 2013 and this Government has consulted on increasing penalties. The consultation closed on 15 March and we plan to issue our response soon.