Tag: Lord Beecham

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-09-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the total untaxed capital gains that will accrue to the beneficiaries of the starter homes scheme by 2020, taking into account the discount and any anticipated rise in house values.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The 2015 Conservative manifesto had the clear objective to build affordable homes, including Starter Homes to support young people into home ownership. They will be sold at a minimum 20 per cent discount on open market value and for no more than the price cap of £250,000 (£450,000 in London). The amount of discount will vary according to local property prices. No separate assessment on capital gains has been made.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2015-11-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which companies were invited to tender or to participate in dialogues for the 2015 contracts for (1) the running of Medway secure training centre, and (2) the running of Rainsbrook secure training centre.

Lord Faulks

The companies that were invited to tender for the running of the Medway secure training centre were:

• G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited (now trading as Inspiring Futures);
• MTCnovo Limited;
• Sodexo Justice Services;
• Diagrama Foundation; and
• Ingeus UK Limited.

The companies that were invited to tender for the running of the Rainsbrook secure training centre were:

• G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited (now trading as Inspiring Futures);
• MTCnovo Limited;
• Sodexo Justice Services;
• Diagrama Foundation; and
• Ingeus UK Limited.

Tenders to run Medway and Rainsbrook secure training centres were evaluated using a standard approach balancing quality and price.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-01-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which, if any, of the recommendations of the report on the welfare of immigration detainees by Stephen Shaw have been rejected, and on what grounds.

Lord Bates

The Government’s position on the Stephen Shaw review was set out in the Written Ministerial Statement laid on 14 January 2016.

The Government accepts the broad thrust of Mr Shaw’s recommendations. In particular the Government accepts Mr Shaw’s recommendations to adopt a wider definition of those at risk, including victims of sexual violence, individuals with mental health issues, pregnant women, those with learning difficulties, post-traumatic stress disorder and elderly people, and to recognise the dynamic nature of vulnerabilities. We will introduce a new “adult at risk” concept into decision-making on immigration detention with a clear presumption that people who are at risk should not be detained, building on the existing legal framework.

A more detailed mental health needs assessment in immigration removal centres, using the expertise of the Centre for Mental Health, will be carried out and is expected to report in March 2016. NHS commissioners will use that assessment to consider and revisit current provision to ensure healthcare needs are being met appropriately. The Government will also publish a joint Department of Health, NHS and Home Office mental health action plan in April 2016.

We will also be considering a number of operational recommendations made by Mr Shaw, on a case by case basis, taking account of available resources.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the annual saving in legal aid costs as a result of the withdrawal of legal and advice in relation to benefits appeals.

Lord Faulks

Legal aid for welfare benefits appeals is limited to advice and assistance on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, including applications to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal. Legal aid is also available for judicial reviews of welfare benefit decisions and claims about welfare benefits relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010.

Given the need to focus limited resource on the highest priority matters, legal aid is no longer generally available for other welfare benefits matters. Although many people rely on benefits, these cases primarily concern financial entitlement and, as such, do not raise such fundamental issues as cases concerning liberty or safety.

The Impact Assessments published at the time LASPO received Royal Assent provided estimates for the reductions in legal aid spending for matters within the welfare benefits category, It was estimated that volumes would fall by 135,000 or 98% and spend by £25m or 97%. As part of the LASPO Post Implementation Review, the department will make an assessment of whether this reduction has been achieved. The impact assessments published alongside LASPO are available on the gov.uk website.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-10-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of supported housing properties likely to be affected by the proposed reduction in housing benefit, and what is their estimate of the range of weekly costs to tenants of such properties.

Lord Freud

Supported accommodation plays a vital role in the lives of many vulnerable people. That is why on 15 September 2016 we announced, via a Written Ministerial Statement, that we would be deferring the application of Local Housing Allowance Rates in the social sector for supported housing until 2019/20, at which point we will bring in a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels, taking into account the effect of Government policy on social sector rents.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2015-11-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will release data relevant to the assessment of whether Work Capability Assessment tests are connected to the incidence of suicide or mental health problems of disability benefit claimants; and if so, when.

Lord Freud

The information requested is not available.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to respond to the Ewins review of overseas domestic work visas.

Lord Bates

The Government is considering carefully James Ewins’ recommendations and will respond after meeting with Peers, following Committee stage of the Immigration Bill and by Report stage.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-05-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 18 February (HL5912), when information about taxes paid by and benefits paid to EU migrants which was not available in February became available, and why that answer was not updated with the requested information.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

The analysis on recently arrived non-UK EEA nationals subject to income tax and National Insurance contributions or receiving HMRC administered benefits became available on 12 May 2016 when it was published on HMRC’s publications page on GOV.UK.

No estimate of VAT paid by EU Nationals is held. VAT is levied on most goods and services, with the person’s nationality not generally recorded.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-10-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 1 August (HL1311), whether they intend to publish the response to the consultation on Sure Start; and if not, why not.

Lord Nash

I refer Lord Beecham to my Written Answer on 13 September to HL1466. The Prime Minister has been clear that tackling poverty and disadvantage, and delivering real social reform, will be a priority for this Government. We will consider future policy on children’s centres as part of this. We will provide further detail in due course and will make clear how stakeholders and members of the public can contribute.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2015-11-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Saudi Arabia concerning the death sentence imposed on the Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The British Government is aware of, and concerned about, the case of Mr Ashraf Fayadh. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country, especially in cases which include the use of the death penalty for a crime which isn’t deemed “the most serious”. We take every opportunity to make the Saudi Arabian authorities aware of our views.

The Government is a strong supporter of freedom of expression around the world. We believe that people must be allowed to discuss and debate issues freely, challenge their governments peacefully; exercise the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and speak out against violations of human rights, wherever they occur.