Tag: Kirsten Oswald

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-07-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether her Department has undertaken research into the child welfare implications of possible amendments to the meaning of the term supply in the Video Recordings Act 1984 to include adults providing children with access to recordings categorised as containing age-inappropriate content.

Matt Hancock

Following public consultations involving representations from classification bodies, child welfare groups, local authorities, content producers and many others, since 2010 we have legislated twice to strengthen the protections provided by the Act. This has ensured that retailers now cannot sell or rent any age-inappropriate DVDs or video games discs or cartridges to children. It also ensures these products are all labelled with relevant British Board of Film Classification (DVDs) and PEGI (video games) age ratings and content advice. This means adults have better information to help them make responsible decisions about the material children can access.

We will continue to work with industry and the age ratings bodies to encourage further promotion of the BBFC and PEGI age ratings to consumers including through initiatives such as BBFCInsight and AskAboutGames.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-10-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 4 August 2016 to Question 43327, whether his Department has classified the international armed conflict with Daesh to be with or without territorial restriction.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

Armed conflict with Daesh is non-international in character and is territorially restricted.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2015-11-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what regulations on prior knowledge of English apply to applicants for Tier 4 visas where the student’s principal purpose in entering the UK is to study English as a foreign language.

James Brokenshire

International students whose principal purpose for coming to the UK is to study English can use the Tier 4 (General) route of the points-based system or the short-term student route.

Applicants who wish to study a course below degree level under Tier 4 (General) must demonstrate that they are competent in English language at a minimum of level B1 in all four components (speaking, listening, reading and writing) on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Those who wish to study a course at degree level or above must demonstrate they are competent at a minimum of level B2 in all four components.

Applicants who wish to study under the short-term student route are not required to demonstrate a prior knowledge of English language. English language courses may be studied for up to 11 months under this route.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2015-12-08.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last received advice on the adequacy of the Financial Conduct Authority’s requirements for professional indemnity to underpin advice given by independent financial advisers; and what action he took in response to that advice.

Harriett Baldwin

Treasury Ministers regularly receive advice on regulatory issues.

As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Treasury’s practice to provide details of such advice.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-01-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to participants in the Syrian peace process to encourage them to consider a statement urging an end to the use of long-term siege of civilian populations in Madaya and other such settlements.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

The UK has consistently condemned any illegal use of siege tactics and called on all parties to the conflict in Syria to allow the safe, unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid and to respect all relevant provisions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), as set out in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions.

The UK played a key role in the passage of UNSCR 2254 of 18 December 2015, which specifically calls on the parties to allow rapid, safe and unhindered access for humanitarian aid to besieged and hard to reach places.

It is deplorable that the regime, which is responsible for most of the sieges, has only approved 10% of UN requests over the past year to deliver aid to besieged and hard to reach areas. The regime’s allies, including Russia, must do much more to ensure the regime complies with its obligations. We continue to make this clear in our diplomatic engagements on Syria.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-02-29.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what issues were discussed at the meeting that took place between Ministers of his Department and representatives of the Financial Conduct Authority on 23 January 2015; and who the attendees were at that meeting.

Harriett Baldwin

Treasury Ministers and officials meet regularly with the Financial Conduct Authority to discuss relevant regulatory issues. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Treasury’s practice to provide details of all such discussions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent representations he has received on the future funding of research into mesothelioma.

George Freeman

The Government agrees that more mesothelioma research is needed and has taken measures to stimulate an increase in the level of research activity.

Patients, carers, clinicians and funders have worked in partnership to identify what the priorities in research are. Following a survey and a workshop, the top 10 mesothelioma research priorities were announced in December 2014. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) published a final report from the Priority Setting Partnership in July 2015. In advance of the identification of research questions by this partnership, the NIHR highlighted to the research community that it wanted to encourage research applications in mesothelioma.

The NIHR subsequently invited researchers to apply for mesothelioma research funding, in particular to address the research questions identified through the partnership. Eight NIHR programmes participated in this themed call. Fifteen individual applications were received, of which two have been approved for funding.

In addition, the NIHR Research Design Service continues to be able to help prospective applicants develop competitive research proposals. This service is well-established and has

10 regional bases across England. It supports researchers to develop and design high-quality proposals for submission to NIHR itself and also to other national, peer-reviewed funding competitions for applied health or social care research.

The National Cancer Research Institute is facilitating ongoing dialogue between relevant research funders on the topic of mesothelioma, to discuss what the barriers to research are and what is needed to stimulate research in the field.

The Chancellor’s Budget Report committed £5 million of LIBOR fines over the next four years for the National Mesothelioma Centre.

The Department has received recent representations relating to funding of mesothelioma research from the Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum UK and from several hon. Members on behalf of constituents.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Annual Report 2015 of the Service Complaints Ombudsmen for the Armed Forces, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the finding that female personnel in the armed forces are approximately 30 per cent more likely than their male counterparts to lodge a complaint with the Service Complaints Commissioner.

Mark Lancaster

The Service Complaints Ombudsman’s annual report for 2015 was published on 25 April 2016. Whilst there are no recommendations in this year’s report, given the introduction of a reformed complaints system and a fundamentally new Ombudsman role, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is curently considering the report in detail to see what lessons there are for the complaints process or wider policies.

The aim of the reforms introduced on 1 January 2016 is to address long-standing concerns raised by the Service Complaints Commissioner that confidence in the system has been affected by complexity which has led to delay and by a lack of strong independent and effective oversight. Such a lack of confidence can in turn leave our personnel reluctant to raise issues and so have them resolved. The new process is streamlined, and Service personnel will now be able to approach the new Service Complaints Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied, which will make a real difference for individuals. The Ombudsman has significant new powers to hold the MOD to account for fair, effective and efficient complaints handllng. The Ombudsman comments in her report that she is hopeful that the new system will make a real impact on confidence levels. The MOD shares that view, and looks forward to the Ombudsman’s 2016 report for her assessment of whether the aims are being achieved.

It is important that all Service personnel know where to get information about how to make a service complaint, as well as about the role of the new Service Complaints Ombudsman and how to contact her. We will take further steps to communicate as widely as possible through appropriate channels the role of the new Ombudsman, particularly to junior personnel, which will supplement and support the visits undertaken and communication material produced by the Ombudsman.

Bullying, harassment and discrimination are not tolerated in the Armed Forces. Tackling such behaviour depends on our Service personnel having confidence that the complaints system will deal with their concerns appropriately and will treat them fairly. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will hold the MOD to account for how it handles complaints and how it treats its Service personnel under the complaints process. It is by raising complaints and approaching the Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied that complainants can ensure that the MOD is openly held to account. It is also through the Ombudsman’s recommendations that the MOD can identify where action needs to be taken to improve.

The finding by the Service Complaints Ombudsman that proportionately more women feel moved to make a Service complaint than their male colleagues is a concern. The Ombudsman goes on to commend the work that is being done by the Army in particular, where the issue is the most acute, to tackle this. The initiatives that she sets out in the report are continuing.

It is the responsibility of all those involved in the service complaints process to ensure complaints are handled effectively and efficiently. All complaints are to be dealt with promptly but fairly, regardless of the complainant’s rank or whether they are still serving. There have been no discussions with the Chief of the Defence Staff on the issues raised.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many of his Department’s laptop computers have been lost in the last year.

Mark Lancaster

Between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reported that 39 laptops were lost.

The MOD treats all losses of assets seriously. All reported losses are subjected to an initial security risk assessment, with further action taken on a proportionate basis.

It is MOD policy that its laptops are to be encrypted to minimise the impact if a loss were to occur.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on morale among members of the armed forces of the transition from Pay 2000 to the new Pay 16 pay structure.

Mark Lancaster

The new Pay 16 structure was specifically established in response to Service personnel criticisms of the old pay model. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has developed the new pay model as a simpler, more transparent system which provides Service personnel with greater pay predictability. It addresses some of the concerns about the previous pay model reported by personnel through both the Service Complaints system and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I fully expect these changes to be positive for morale overall.

Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of the new pay model, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation. We have taken steps to ensure that personnel are aware of the range and nature of the pay reforms that began on 1 April 2016 and comprehensive internal communications activity has been undertaken to explain the changes. This included Departmental guidance to help personnel understand their new pay statement and any changes. Personnel, including those under pay protection, continue to remain eligible for any Government-approved pay award. Pay protection has been put in place to ensure that no one will take a pay cut on implementation of Pay 16 and this arrangement will exist for at least the first three years to ensure that no one is disadvantaged.

The new pay model is not designed as a cost saving exercise, but is a rebalancing of pay to make more efficient and effective use of the Armed Forces pay bill; the AFPRB will continue to recommend pay rates for all personnel. As we go forward the Service Complaints Process and AFCAS will be primary sources which inform our assessment of the benefits realised through the pay reforms.