UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department has provided the Intelligence and Security Committee with copies of any national security directions made under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has been briefed on the use of directions under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

    In accordance with section 94 subsection (6) of the Telecommunications Act 1984, money may be provided for the purpose of compensating for any losses that are sustained by reason of compliance with directions.

    On 13 January 2015, the Prime Minister asked the Interception of Communications Commissioner to oversee directions issued under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act. The Commissioner will report on his findings, including on the statistics and wider information that can be published about the use of the power without damage to national security, in his next report.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what income his Department received in connection with its holding in NATS Holdings Ltd in each year from 2010-11 to 2014-15; and what his Department’s projected income is from its holding in NATS Holdings Ltd in each year from 2015-16 to 2020-21.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    NATS is a private company and HMG owns a 49% stake in this entity.

    In each of the years 2010-11 to 2014-15, the Department received the following income in connection with its stake in NATS:

    Year

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15

    Income (£m)

    19.547

    24.775

    19.547

    30.298

    37.628

    Future dividend distribution will be determined by the board of NATS as appropriate.

  • Peter Lilley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Lilley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Lilley on 2016-01-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what contingency plans the Skills Funding Agency has in place to launch tenders for training contracts in 2017 open to all training providers and including current sub-contractors in the event of the introduction of the European Union rule that contracts must be fairly awarded in open tendering processes; and what discussions the Government has had with representatives of the EU on this matter.

    Nick Boles

    The Skills Funding Agency is aware of the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations which came into force in February 2015 and has processes in place to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Regulations when procuring education and training services.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if his Department will undertake a reassessment of the adequacy of flood alleviation measures proposed in planning permissions that have been granted to developments on floodplains affected by recent flooding.

    Brandon Lewis

    It is primarily the responsibility of local planning authorities to determine applications for planning permission. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that local planning authorities should avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including floodplains. If there are better sites in terms of flood risk, or a proposed development cannot be made safe, it should not be permitted. Any new buildings that are permitted in flood risk areas should be appropriately flood resistant and resilient.

    Local planning authorities and developers are best-placed to understand the details of the development proposed and the local circumstances and risks to determine if a review is needed. It is in the interest of both the local planning authority and the developer to review a planning permission that has yet to be implemented in an area affected by the recent flooding. This can lead to an entirely new planning application being submitted by the developer to deal with the flooding issues now known. If adjustments can be made to the development, an application to make a non-material amendment under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may follow. This would allow the local planning authority to impose new conditions and remove or vary conditions attached to an existing planning permission, and may include a requirement to submit an updated flood risk assessment.

    If needed, local planning authorities also have powers under section 97 of the 1990 Act to make an order revoking or modifying a planning permission, prior to completion of the development.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-03-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what support her Department offers to third-sector training providers and local authorities in reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

    Nick Boles

    Local authorities have a duty to track, support and encourage young people to participate in education and training, with a particular focus on those who are not in employment, education or training (NEET). The Department for Education supports local authorities in meeting this duty by: providing a secure portal for them to exchange data about young people’s activities; collating and publishing data about young people’s activities; sharing good practice; and publishing a NEET Scorecard to help local authorities manage their performance.

    Local authorities decide how they will work with and support education and training providers, the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS), and other agencies in meeting these requirements.

    Local authorities receive funding from central government to enable them to meet their statutory obligations including this duty, but it is up to them to determine exactly how much they spend on these activities, and whether and how much funding should be provided to VCS organisations to help with this. Reflecting its continued commitment to supporting young people NEET, the government has allocated £30 million for the Youth Engagement Fund and Fair Chance Fund Social Impact Bond (SIB) schemes, and the recent Spending Review settlement saw over £100 million for further SIBs, tackling issues such as youth unemployment, homelessness and mental health.

  • Lord Watson of Richmond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Watson of Richmond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Watson of Richmond on 2016-04-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the concerns highlighted by Fellows of the Royal Society and Cambridge academics about the impact on science if the UK were to leave the EU.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    At the February European Council, the Government negotiated a new settlement, giving the United Kingdom a special status in a reformed European Union. The Government’s position, as set out by the Prime Minister to the House on 22 February, is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU.

  • David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Lammy on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many of her Department’s full-time equivalent officials are seconded to (a) France, (b) Italy, (c) Greece and (d) any other EU country in order to identify and support Dublin III asylum transfer requests; and what plans her Department has to second further staff to identify and support such requests.

    James Brokenshire

    We continue to work with a number of EU Member States and the European Asylum Sup-port Office (EASO) to ensure Dublin works effectively. We are in ongoing discussions with France, Italy and Greece, as well as the UNHCR, to ensure that we continue to have the right processes in place and the resources to make them work effectively.

    We have recently deployed two UK experts to the Greek Dublin Unit. We are currently providing bilateral support to the Italian Dublin Unit through a long term secondment. We are also due to deploy an additional UK expert to the Italian Dublin Unit shortly.

    Our work with France including the permanent official contact group and a recently sec-onded senior UK official to the French Dublin Unit to assist with the identification and transfer of cases has shown results of our collaborative efforts.

    The Home Office has a unit processing Dublin III asylum transfer requests from and to the United Kingdom. This unit comprises 78.34 full time equivalent managers, caseworkers and support staff. Staffing levels will remain in line with anticipated volumes.

    As announced on 4 May we are now looking to transfer children who were already present in Europe before the EU-Turkey deal came into force on 20 March, where it is in their best interests. It is important that we ensure we fulfil our obligations to children who are already in UK, as well ensuring we have the right support for those who may be brought to the UK from Europe. We are working with the relevant Member States, the UNHCR and other Non-Governmental Organisations and local authorities to establish the best way to implement the provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 for the transfer of unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the UK.

  • Jim McMahon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Jim McMahon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim McMahon on 2016-07-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department plans to (a) close or (b) change the functions of the Jobcentre Plus facility in Oldham town centre.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Department is in the process of reviewing all of its estates requirements as the current contract for most of the estate comes to an end on 31 March 2018. No decision has been made on the future of Oldham Jobcentre Plus by the Department.

    Commercial negotiations are underway on the entirety of our estate at this time and it is not appropriate to comment further on individual sites while negotiations are in progress.

  • Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine West on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what his policy is on the UK’s status as a signatory to the Euratom Treaty after the UK leaves the EU.

    Jesse Norman

    The Government is assessing the legal and policy implications of the public’s vote to leave the EU including the UK’s membership of EURATOM.

  • Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what her Department’s current service standard is for the time taken to process further submissions related to an asylum claim.

    James Brokenshire

    There is not a formal service standard for deciding further submissions from failed asylum seekers. The Home Office is balancing resource between those failed asylum seekers with no leave to remain who have made further submissions on the one hand and, on the other, those who were granted a limited period of leave following the refusal of their application who have outstanding applications for Further Leave.

    With regard to further submissions lodged by failed asylum seekers, there is dedicated resource in place to decide cases in the existing stock of further submissions and to also decide new submissions quickly, wherever possible within 5 days of their being lodged. With regard to cases in the stock of further submissions, the Home Office is prioritising cases where applicants are in receipt of asylum support and cases where the applicant may be removed from the United Kingdom in the eventuality their submission is refused. The Home Office will also give priority to further submissions case that have been outstanding for the longest period of time.

    The figures in the below table relate to failed asylum seekers who had outstanding further submissions as of 30 June 2015:

    Timescale (Years) Total

    1 – 2 2383

    2 – 3 1426

    3 or more 1267

    Total 5076