Tag: Dan Jarvis

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-01-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans are in place to provide more step-free access at London Underground stations.

Mr Robert Goodwill

Transport is a devolved matter in London and therefore the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL).

In October 2014 the Mayor announced an extra £76 million partnership fund for step-free access schemes where contributions can be found from developers and other third parties, including the boroughs. TfL is carrying out a review of all accessible information, and will be working with disabled people, and the organisations that represent them, to ensure their feedback is incorporated into any improvements.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-02-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if his Department will publish flexible working arrangements by default in job adverts.

Joseph Johnson

Jobs in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are already advertised as open to flexible working arrangements, unless in exceptional circumstances which must be approved by a Director General.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-02-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what political representations UK officials have made to the Afghan government with respect to the Afghan Minerals Law and amendments currently being considered by the Afghan government; and whether UK officials have provided technical assistance in the preparation of those amendments.

Mr Desmond Swayne

The British Embassy regularly consults the National Unity Government on improving the Minerals Law to encourage responsible investment into the extractives sector. The UK proposed revisions to the Minerals Law in a review commissioned by the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum and provided support for the incorporation of recommendations by transparency organisations and donor partners into amendments.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what controls arising from health considerations are placed on manufacturers on the use of formaldehyde.

Justin Tomlinson

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has responsibility for the regulation of workplace health and safety in the UK, and it is the legal duty of those who create risks through work activities to understand those risks and ensure they are adequately controlled. This includes ensuring that duty holders/employers identify and obtain relevant information on the hazardous properties of the substances or materials they use or manufacture.

The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH) requires those who place chemicals such as formaldehyde on the market to provide information on the hazards associated with the chemical both up and down the supply chain. This includes the provision of Safety Data Sheets which must accompany chemicals through the supply chain, providing the information users need to ensure that chemicals are safely used and managed.

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) also applies in the workplace when hazardous substances, such as formaldehyde, are manufactured, used, or where processes are undertaken that generate hazardous substances. COSHH requires the employer to carry out a risk assessment to establish what, if any, risks to health are associated with the products/processes their employees are using/undertaking and then to put in place measures to eliminate or control exposure to those risks.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much funding her Department received from the European Social Fund (a) between 2007 and 2014 and (b) from 2014 to the last month for which data is available.

Karen Bradley

The Home Office’s finance system has no record of the Department receiving funds from the European Social Fund.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, from which non-UK EU-based companies his Department procures materiel.

Mr Philip Dunne

In 2014-15, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) placed 2,128 new contracts. A breakdown of those which were non-UK EU-based companies is not held centrally.

The MOD does, however, routinely publish a list of all organisations with which we have spent £5 million or more. Details for 2015 can be found in Excel tables 2a and 2b of the Trade, Industry and Contracts Bulletin 2015 at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mod-industry-trade-and-contracts-2015

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-04-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 14 March 2016 to Question 31000, what assessment the NHS has made of the potential causal link between formaldehyde contained in everyday products and eczema and other atopic conditions.

Jane Ellison

The National Health Service has made no such assessment.

The NHS has to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). This applies in the workplace when hazardous substances are manufactured, used or where processes are undertaken that generate hazardous substances. COSHH requires the employer to carry out a risk assessment to establish what, if any, hazards are associated with products/processes employees are using/undertaking and then put measures in place to control exposure to those hazards.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-05-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether the Government plans to become a founding donor of the Education Cannot Wait fund for education in emergencies when it is launched at the World Humanitarian Summit 2016.

Mr Nick Hurd

I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I provided on 24 May to Question number 37332.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to require local authorities to prioritise homeless people in the allocation of social housing.

Mr Marcus Jones

We have maintained the protection provided by the statutory reasonable preference criteria which ensure that overall priority for allocation of social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need. The reasonable preference categories include people who are homeless and those owed certain duties under the homelessness legislation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether his Department plans to respond to the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research evaluation study, No evidence Troubled Families Programme has any significant impact on key objectives, published on 17 October 2016.

Mr Marcus Jones

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research Impact Study was just one of 6 reports comprising the independent evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme. The evaluation found that the programme had many positive achievements. These include:

• Families feeling more confident and optimistic about being able to cope in the future
• Joining up local services for families by encouraging a single keyworker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems
• Raising the quality and capacity of local data systems
• Better joint working with partners such as Jobcentre Plus

The data shows that nearly 120,000 of the families on this programme saw their lives improve – more children attending school, youth crime and anti-social behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 families, an adult holding down a job. The evaluation does not dispute this fact.

Unsurprisingly, the ambitious and innovative impact study which used national administrative datasets to track changes in families circumstances over comparatively short time periods, was unable to specifically attribute positive outcomes achieved in employment, youth crime or school attendance to the Troubled Families Programme.

This was because at that time the level of change achieved was not significantly different from that seen in a group of families not on the programme with whom comparisons were made. This is not the same, however, as saying that the evaluation shows family outcomes did not improve, as some have wrongly inferred.

Of course, we will continue to review all evidence of how the programme is working, to learn from it and see if there’s more we can do to help families facing such multiple problems. In fact, we have already adapted the new programme in a number of ways, including extending the length of time over which family outcomes will be tracked – from 12 months to 5 years.