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 2016-07-12.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of how effective his Department has been in promoting the advancement of disabled members of staff.

    Ben Gummer

    Diversity and inclusion is a key priority for the Civil Service and for the Cabinet Office. The Executive Committee of the Cabinet Office recently commissioned work on a departmental diversity and inclusion strategy, which will be published this month. This strategy promotes a more inclusive culture in the department through key strands of work on leadership, declaration data, supporting those from under-represented groups and promoting the work of the employee diversity networks. A key aim of the strategy is to promote the advancement of those from all under-represented groups, including disabled members of staff.

    The Cabinet Office promotes a number of cross Government talent schemes to disabled staff, to accelerate their promotion to Senior Civil Service roles. This includes Civil Service wide talent schemes such the Future Leaders Scheme (aimed at G6&7 staff) and the Senior Leaders Scheme (aimed at SCS Pay Band 1). Additionally, it promotes development schemes aimed specifically at BAME and disabled staff including the Accelerate talent programme (for SCS) and the Positive Action Pathway (for staff below SCS).

    The Cabinet Office has a well established Disability Network staffed by volunteers, which promotes and supports the work of employees with disabilities. In addition, the Cabinet Office recently created the The Disability Action Group, which is a sub-committee of the Cabinet Office Executive Committee and reports to the Permanent Secretary and the Director General Disability Champion on disability confidence and inclusion in the Cabinet Office. The group ensures civil service wide initiatives are acted upon and that our people with a disability are considered in any building, technology or change projects.

  • Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patrick Grady on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the government of Sudan on the use of funds earmarked under the Khartoum Process by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The EU has made absolutely clear that no funding will be provided to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). We have raised our concerns about the use of the RSF to manage migration directly with the Government of Sudan, most recently during the visit of the UK Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan to Khartoum in September.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-01-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answers of 23 November 2015 to Questions 16300 and 16301, what proportion of cases with a current liability the 110 non-compliant cases that have been closed as part of the CSA case closure programme represent.

    Priti Patel

    The 110 non-complaint cases represent 0.02% of the cases with a current liability as at the quarter ending September 2015.

    Notes

    1. The percentage figure is rounded to 2 decimal places.
    2. Cases include those paying via Collection Service and Maintenance Direct.
    3. The non-compliant case figure was at October 2015.
    4. The percentage figure is of the number of cases with a current liability as at September 2015 (574,400).

  • The Earl of Clancarty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The Earl of Clancarty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-02-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether UK military personnel trained in, or dedicated to, cultural protection have been involved in liaison with Saudi Arabia regarding its intervention in Yemen.

    Earl Howe

    All UK Service personnel receive mandatory annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict and this includes training in cultural protection. They will also receive further training prior to their deployment.

  • Angela Rayner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Angela Rayner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Rayner on 2016-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking in response to the Oxleas Plus supplement option for pensions offered by Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust.

    Alistair Burt

    National Health Service organisations have the freedom to make changes to the reward offer they make to staff; having regard to the legal framework. The NHS Pension Board has referred Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust to the Pensions Regulator (TPR) even though TPR has already found the option for pensions offered by the Trust was not an inducement and therefore not a breach of law.

    However, the NHS Pension Board concluded that there was additional information, which may not have been considered in relation to the earlier referral, and that given the potential wider implications of this issue, a further in-depth investigation by TPR was merited.

    The NHS Pension Board is awaiting TPR’s decision. The Secretary of State for Health will consider any subsequent advice from the NHS Pension Board.

  • Vicky Foxcroft – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Vicky Foxcroft – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Vicky Foxcroft on 2016-04-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what safeguards are in place to ensure that patients are not removed from patient registers without their prior knowledge.

    Alistair Burt

    Where a general practitioner (GP) practice wishes to remove a patient from their list the contract, between the practice and NHS England, requires practices to have reasonable grounds for doing so. The contract also requires practices to have notified the patient in the preceding 12 months that they are at risk of removal from the list and explained the reasons for this.

    Practices must notify NHS England and the patient of the intended removal and the reasons for the removal. It is the responsibility of NHS England to notify the patient that they will be, or have been, removed from their practice’s list of patients. Removal from the list will take place on the eighth day after NHS England receive notification of the removal or the date on which NHS England are notified that the patient has registered with another GP practice.

    Where a patient is receiving treatment at intervals of less than seven days, the removal will take place on the eighth day after treatment is no longer needed or the date on which NHS England receives notification that the patient has registered with another practice.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park on 4 May (HL8001), whether they have requested that the taskforce set up by Universities UK includes members of those minorities subject to harassment and hate crime, representatives of the relevant law and order agencies, and independent members with no direct university involvement.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The taskforce, established by Universities UK, is looking at all forms of violence and harassment affecting students. Its task is to bring together students, university experts and external organisations to consider the current evidence and what universities are currently doing to address issues of harassment and hate crime, including anti-Semitism, and what more needs to be done.

    The taskforce have had meetings with or received evidence from a wide range of organisations which includes the Union of Jewish Students, Rape Crisis, Tell Mama and Stonewall. In regards to anti-Semitism, the Taskforce has also received evidence from the Jewish Leadership Council, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Community Security Trust. In terms of law and order agencies, evidence has been received from a number of lawyers and from the police via PAHELO (Police Association of Higher Education Liaison Officers).

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-07-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what guidance his Department provides to local authorities on how to take into account a neighbourhood planning process being underway when considering making their own applications for housing on sites that will be affected by that neighbourhood plan.

    Gavin Barwell

    The procedures for dealing with development by local authorities are contained in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. A local authority’s development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

    Once brought into force, a neighbourhood plan becomes part of the development plan for the area; an emerging neighbourhood plan may be a material consideration. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the weight of emerging plan policies will depend on the stage of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with national policy. It is for the decision maker in each case to determine what is a material consideration and what weight to give to it.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the UK Security Council on prosecuting the people responsible for the massacre of political prisoners in Iran in 1988.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The British Government opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and takes any allegations of extrajudicial killings seriously. The Iranian Government has repeatedly denied that a mass execution took place, though we are aware that between July 1988 and January 1989 executions did take place. However, even with the recording and media reporting on the incident, we have no confirmation of the numbers involved. Although we have no plans to pursue this specific matter we will continue to take action with the international community to press for improvements on all human rights issues in Iran, including ending the death penalty.

  • Seema Malhotra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Seema Malhotra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Seema Malhotra on 2016-01-26.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what modelling his Department undertakes on the effect on changes to pension contributions of changes to (a) annual allowance and (b) lifetime allowance; and what sources his Department uses for such modelling.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government does not hold its own records on total accumulated pension wealth, only on pension contributions. For the purposes of the Lifetime Allowance, officials have used data from the ONS Wealth and Assets Survey, which includes estimates of pension wealth.

    The Government assessed the effects of changes to the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance by considering how many people would have to reduce their saving in response to these reductions. This methodology was agreed with the OBR.

    The reduction in the Lifetime Allowance will affect only 4% of savers currently approaching retirement. The Lifetime Allowance will be reduced to £1 million from April, but the average pension savings of someone approaching retirement is only £85,000.

    Just 1% of savers make contributions of £40,000 per year, the level of the Annual Allowance since April 2014. The average saver contributes £6,000 per year.

    The introduction of the Tapered Annual Allowance for individuals who earn over £150,000 in April 2016 will impact less than 2% of people saving into a pension.

    The Government laid out its modelling on the effect of changes to the Annual and Lifetime Allowances on pension contributions in its policy costings documents at the March and Summer Budgets 2015.

    For changes to the Lifetime Allowance, the Wealth and Assets Survey was used to estimate pension wealth, and this was projected forward using assumed pension contributions and estimates of the real rate of return on pensions savings taken from the OECD and the Government Actuary’s Department.

    For the Tapered Annual Allowance, modelling used estimates from the Survey of Personal Incomes, HMRC operational data on personal pension contributions, the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, and the Occupational Pension Scheme Survey.