UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what proportion of young people taking part in the National Citizen Service since its inception have had a registered disability.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    In 2011, 16% of NCS participants declared a disability or health problem expected to last more than a year, compared to 12% in the comparable population as recorded by the National Pupil Database. In 2012, 15% of NCS participants declared a disability, compared to 12% in the comparable population as recorded by the National Pupil Database.

    The NCS Trust, the independent organisation which has delivered NCS since 2013, does not mandate the recording of information about registered disability or health problems by providers.

    However, the NCS Trust does capture self-declared Special Educational Needs information. In 2013, 4.5% of NCS participants had Special Educational Needs; in 2014, 3.6%. Data for 2015 will become available in due course. For comparison, in both the January 2013 School Census and January 2014 School Census, 2.8% of schoolchildren had a Special Educational Needs statement or Educational, Health and Care (EHC) plan.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what his Department’s policy is on the requirements for property owners to check for asbestos before selling their property.

    Gavin Barwell

    The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, which are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, require the owner, or person responsible for maintenance, of a non-domestic building to record the location and condition of any asbestos-containing materials and to put in place a plan to manage the risk they present. This information should therefore be available should the owner decide to sell the building.

    There is no requirement for homeowners to check for asbestos before selling their property. However the indoor air concentrations of asbestos in most dwellings, including those where asbestos is present but in good condition, present minimal risk to health. Where a building is surveyed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, this would include an assessment of the risk of asbestos to occupants of dwellings but there is no requirement for the rating system to be used when selling a dwelling. Tradespeople, such as plumbers and electricians, are aware of the risks of asbestos and take care in handling it to minimise risks.

  • Tania Mathias – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tania Mathias – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tania Mathias on 2015-12-16.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he plans that the three per cent additional stamp duty rate on the purchase of a second home will apply to people in the process of moving house who own two properties for a short period of time.

    Mr David Gauke

    In general, if, at the end of the day of a residential property transaction, a purchaser owns more than one property and has not replaced a main residence, the higher rates will apply. Where there is a temporary overlap between replacing and selling a main residence, the higher rates will apply but the purchaser will be entitled to a refund of the higher amounts on disposal of the previous main residence within 18 months.

    The Government is consulting on the policy detail, including on the treatment of difficult cases.

  • Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Smith on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times she rejected the recommendations of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit for project licences in each year since 2012.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Harm-Benefit Analysis (HBA) is undertaken, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors, all of whom are veterinary or medically qualified and trained in assessing research proposals. The HBA is the process of considering a research proposal to make a judgement whether the likely harms that the animals will experience are justified by the likely benefits. Under section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, inspectors advise the Secretary of State who decides whether and on what terms a project licence should be granted.

    The number of project licences which were recommended for grant by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors between 2012 and 2015 are shown in table 1, column (c).

    The Secretary of State has not rejected any of the recommendations for granting project licences made by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors between 2012 and 2015.

    The Home Office does not keep records of applications that have been rejected or withdrawn at the concept or drafting stage [24507]. The Home Office does not keep records of which applications were withdrawn as a result of advice from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors.

    The Home Office refers project licence applications to both the Animals in Science Committee and external independent assessors for critical review. The number of project licences referred to both is given in Table 1 columns (a) and (b) respectively for the years 2012-15.

    Year

    (a) Project licence applications referred to the Animals in Science Committee[1]

    (b) Project licence applications referred to independent assessors

    (c) Project licences granted

    2012

    9

    4

    626

    2013

    3

    0

    604

    2014

    4

    1

    474

    2015

    3

    0

    577

    [1] Prior to 2013 the independent advisory body was entitled the ‘Animals Procedures Committee’

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much of the £390 million funding referred to in paragraph 0.5 of his Department’s paper, Infected blood: reform of financial and other support, published in January 2016, was spent in each year to date; and what the average spend per recipient in each such year was.

    Jane Ellison

    The Department only holds finance data for payments under the Schemes back to 2007. This information is provided below.

    2014-15 £22,278,096

    2013-14 £27,043,569

    2012-13 £22,052,458

    2011-12 £27,192,232

    2010-11 £39,805,667

    2009-10 £22,461,057

    2008-09 £19,240,337

    2007-08 £20,532,461

    The figures above include the annual payments to those with HIV and hepatitis C stage 2, and the lump sum payments made on joining the scheme and progressing to hepatitis C stage 2. The fluctuation in amounts between the years reflects the variance in number of people newly coming forward or progressing to hepatitis C stage 2 in each year.

    The payments to individuals included both discretionary and non-discretionary payments, data on which is only held by the trusts and funds. Therefore, the Department is unable to estimate the levels of individual payments.

  • Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Maria Eagle on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what meetings she or officials of her Department have had on the future of (a) Halewood Academy and (b) sixth form provision in the Borough of Knowsley.

    Nick Boles

    Following discussions with Halewood Academy Centre for Learning Trust, the RSC, advised by her Head Teacher Board, agreed that Halewood Academy would transfer to Innovation Enterprise Trust. The transfer is due to happen in September 2016.

    An Area Review covering Liverpool City Region is due to take place this academic year. This will include sixth form provision, as well as sixth form colleges and Further Education, in its analysis phase. The RSC for Lancashire and West Yorkshire is involved in the review.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Written Statement of 18 April 2016, HCWS679, on immigration detention, who will be eligible under these proposals to authorise the detention of a pregnant woman for the first 72 hours.

    James Brokenshire

    At present, detention is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) or Higher Executive Officer (HEO). As stated in the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement of 14 January, the Government is developing a new approach to the case management of those detained. This is intended to replace the existing detention review process with a clear removal plan for all those in detention.

    It will ensure that all detainees, including pregnant women, spend the minimum possible time in detention. Under the new policy in order for detention to be extended beyond 72 hours ministerial authorisation will be required and the maximum detention period will be one week.

    Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards already provide independent oversight of detention facilities and conditions of detention. Individuals, including pregnant women, are given prior notification of their liability to removal from the UK by the Home Office and they would be detained only for the purposes of identification or removal.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-05-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will raise with the Palestinian Authority the recent reported increase in arbitrary arrest and allegations of torture and ill-treatment of their detainees.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are deeply concerned by these reports, and have raised our concerns around the conduct of the security forces with the Palestinian Authority. Through our Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, we are working with the Palestinian Authority to support reform of the Palestinian security sector, aiming to strengthen civilian oversight and accountability of the security forces.

  • Kevan Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much his Department plans to spend on the upgrade and life-extension programme for the C130-J programme.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 announced an out of service date (OSD) extension of 14 C130J Mk4 aircraft from 2022 to 2030. This does not constitute an extension of the overall design life of the platform, but a revision of the Royal Air Force’s planned OSD. During this period, it is currently estimated that, over and above annual support costs, approximately £200 million will be spent on key components to maintain the life of the aircraft and £150 million on upgrading the fleet with new capabilities.

  • Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hugo Swire on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will assess the merits of requiring developers who need retrospective planning permission to refund the costs incurred by the planning authority.

    Gavin Barwell

    The enforcement of planning control is a statutory function of local authorities for which they need to budget and the costs of which are not generally recoverable.

    The primary purpose of a retrospective planning application is to give those who have made a genuine mistake the opportunity to rectify the matter. Introducing additional charges would penalise those people unfairly and might deter them from submitting applications.

    We believe this remains the right approach and have no plans to amend it at this time.