Tag: Graham Jones

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what quality standards will be imposed on employers when apprenticeship funding moves directly to employers.

Matthew Hancock

The 2013 consultation on Apprenticeship funding reform sought evidence on the feasibility and impact of three different mechanisms for giving employers more control over the funding. Following consideration of the responses to this consultation, the pure provider payment model was ruled out on the basis that it was the least likely to deliver the intended aim of giving employers true purchasing power.

The subsequent Technical Consultation published in March 2014 sought views on two models – a PAYE model and an apprenticeship credit model which are consistent with an employer-led Apprenticeships system. We are currently evaluating the responses to this consultation and will announce which payment mechanism we plan to pursue in the autumn.

We have established a ministerial advisory panel on Apprenticeship standards, made up of experts to advise the Secretary of State on the approval or rejection of employer designed Apprenticeship standards and assessment approaches.

We will refresh the Skills Funding Agency register of approved Apprenticeship training providers to ensure that only reputable providers are able to offer Apprenticeship training and organisations doing so will be subject to Ofsted inspection.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what factors he took into account in deciding not to adopt a pure provider payment model in reform of apprenticeship funding.

Matthew Hancock

The 2013 consultation on Apprenticeship funding reform sought evidence on the feasibility and impact of three different mechanisms for giving employers more control over the funding. Following consideration of the responses to this consultation, the pure provider payment model was ruled out on the basis that it was the least likely to deliver the intended aim of giving employers true purchasing power.

The subsequent Technical Consultation published in March 2014 sought views on two models – a PAYE model and an apprenticeship credit model which are consistent with an employer-led Apprenticeships system. We are currently evaluating the responses to this consultation and will announce which payment mechanism we plan to pursue in the autumn.

We have established a ministerial advisory panel on Apprenticeship standards, made up of experts to advise the Secretary of State on the approval or rejection of employer designed Apprenticeship standards and assessment approaches.

We will refresh the Skills Funding Agency register of approved Apprenticeship training providers to ensure that only reputable providers are able to offer Apprenticeship training and organisations doing so will be subject to Ofsted inspection.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he is taking to ensure Ofsted is able to undertake the proposed increase in inspections of apprenticeship providers.

Matthew Hancock

Our apprenticeship reforms will improve quality by involving employers in defining the new standards and assessment and by controlling the funding of apprenticeships. Ofsted will continue to play an important role in ensuring the quality of teaching and learning in registered training providers. We are discussing the arrangements with Ofsted as part of the Trailblazer project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, for what reason allowing employers which wish to continue with current apprenticeship funding arrangements to do so was not listed as an option in his Department’s recent consultation on the future of apprenticeships.

Matthew Hancock

The Apprenticeships Funding Reform Technical Consultation sought evidence on the practical implications for employers of two new systems for routing apprenticeship funding: the PAYE model and the Apprenticeship Credit. The practical implications of the current system are already well understood, therefore we did not include this in the technical consultation. We are giving careful consideration to all feedback received, before announcing our next steps in the autumn.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, to which locations pending applications for hydraulic fraturing relate.

Michael Fallon

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 June 2014, Official Report, Column 426W:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140630/text/140630w0004.htm#1407011000033

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many (a) cats, (b) dogs and (c) horses were rehomed after their release from laboratories following research in 2012.

Norman Baker

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Office.

The Home Office does not hold the information requested.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, authority may be given to

re-home animals where those animals were bred or held for supply for use in

regulated procedures, or were intended for use in regulated procedures, or have

been used in regulated procedures. This may also apply to animals which are

being kept under the care of the Named Veterinary Surgeon after completing

procedures, and is always contingent on our acceptance of certain reassurances

relating to Section 17A of the Act. Records of each animal re-homed would be

kept locally at the licensed establishment so that they can be available to

Home Office Inspectors on request.

European Directive 2010/63/EU, which was implemented in the UK and other

Member States on 1 January 2013, does not provide legal grounds on which the UK

can impose a mandatory obligation of re-homing under the Animals (Scientific

Procedures) Act 1986. Nevertheless, we have provided guidance on re-homing

animals in our Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)

Act 1983, section 5.21.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many black and minority ethnic personnel have served in each regiment of the Army in each of the last 10 years.

Anna Soubry

The number of black and minority ethnic personnel serving in each Regiment of the Army in each of the last 10 years is detailed in the tables below:

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) cats, (b) dogs and (c) horses were retired and rehomed under European Union Directive 2010/63/EU in 2013.

Norman Baker

The Home Office does not hold the information requested.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, authority may be given to
re-home animals where those animals were bred or held for supply for use in
regulated procedures, or were intended for use in regulated procedures, or have
been used in regulated procedures. This may also apply to animals which are
being kept under the care of the Named Veterinary Surgeon after completing
procedures and is always contingent on our acceptance of certain reassurances
relating to Section 17A of the Act. Records of each animal re-homed would be
kept locally at the licensed establishment so that they can be available to
Home Office Inspectors on request.

European Directive 2010/63/EU, which was implemented in the UK and other Member
States on 1 January 2013, does not provide legal grounds on which the UK can
impose a mandatory obligation of re-homing under the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986. Nevertheless, we have provided guidance on re-homing
animals in our Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1983, section 5.21.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who (a) were given a non-custodial sentence and (b) were given their first custodial sentence in each year from 2004 had previously had (i) no criminal convictions, (ii) one criminal conviction, (iii) two criminal convictions, (iv) three criminal convictions, (v) four criminal convictions, (vi) five to 10 criminal convictions, (vii) 11 to 20 criminal convictions, (viii) 21 to 30 criminal convictions, (ix) 31 to 40 criminal convictions, (x) 41 to 50 criminal convictions, (xi) 51 to 75, (xii) 76 to 100 criminal convictions and (xiii) more than 100 criminal convictions.

Jeremy Wright

Since 2010, crime has continued to fall and fewer individuals are entering the criminal justice system for the first time. But we have a persistent hardcore of offenders being recycled round and round the criminal justice system, as these figures bear out.

This Government is committed to tackling re-offending rates. We have reformed sentences, so that they combine both punishment and requirements that are effective at preventing further offending. We have legislated so that all community orders must now have a punitive element, and, from 2015, every offender leaving prison spends at least 12 months under supervision, where currently around 50,000 are released each year with no statutory support. We are transforming rehabilitation, by bringing together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors, and only rewarding them when they actually do reduce reoffending.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking account of the circumstances of the case and the maximum penalty for the offence. A court may only impose a community order or a custodial sentence where the offence is imprisonable. The overwhelming majority of repeat offenders have previously received a number of custodial sentences but the large majority of previous convictions identified in the table below resulted in a fine as they were for summary non-motoring offences.

The number of offenders who were given a non-custodial sentence in each year since 2004, broken down by their number of previous convictions, is given in Table 1. It is important to note that these figures are based only on those offences recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) by an English or Welsh police force, including the British Transport Police, and include a number of offences for which the maximum sentence available to the court is a fine. It should also be noted that these figures are based on counting the number of separate occasions on which offenders were sentenced in each year and some offenders will therefore be represented several times in the figures.

Table 2 provides a similar breakdown for those offenders who received their first custodial sentence in each year. Again, the figures are drawn from the PNC and will include a number of offences for which the maximum sentence available to the court is a fine. A large proportion of each offender’s criminal history is therefore likely to include some offences for which it is not possible to receive a custodial sentence. Of those offenders who had between 76 and 100 previous convictions between the 12 months ending September 2004 and the 12 months ending September 2013, 84% of the disposals for their previous convictions were fines. This increases to 96% when you look at the offenders who had over 100 previous convictions. It should also be noted that these figures are based on counting the number of separate occasions on which offenders were sentenced in each year and some offenders could therefore be represented several times in the figures.

The number of offenders who have received at least one previous conviction, or indeed multiple previous convictions, before receiving their first custodial sentence has decreased under this Government.