Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-10-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what proportion of university technical college students who completed apprenticeship courses achieved a Level (a) 3 and (b) 4 apprenticeship qualification in each of the last three years.

    Robert Halfon

    Information on the proportion of university technical college students achieving apprenticeship qualifications over the past three years is not readily available. The Department for Education is phasing in a series of changes to our performance tables from 2018, including the inclusion of apprenticeship outcomes.

  • Deidre Brock – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Deidre Brock – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Deidre Brock on 2015-11-05.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether under any Act arising from the Scotland Bill the Scottish Government will be enabled to pay tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    The Smith Commission agreement, agreed by all the main parties in Scotland, set out those benefits where power should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Tax credits were not amongst those benefits.

    However, under the current Scotland Bill clauses, the Scottish Government will have the power to top-up tax credits, as long as it does so through using its own resources. The Smith Commission agreement said that any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Parliament must provide additional income for a recipient and not result in an automatic offsetting reduction in their entitlement to other benefits. Once the Scottish Government have been clear about how they want to use their new powers, we will work with them to understand the interactions between the reserved and devolved benefit systems.

  • Paul Flynn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Paul Flynn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2015-12-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what proposals the Government made aimed at making fully transparent the financial management practices in each member state participant in the Joint Ministerial Council of British Overseas Territories at its fourth meeting in December 2015.

    James Duddridge

    The Government and Overseas Territories committed at the Joint Ministerial Council to work in partnership as appropriate to support capacity building and the development of expertise in public financial management and economic planning. This includes maintaining sound public finances, building economic resilience and ensuring value for money in use of public funds, including through effective use of audit.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when he plans to provide an answer to Question 18568, tabled by the hon. Member for East Ham on 2 December 2015.

    Nick Boles

    The Government has not made an estimate of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates for these age groups for each year until 2020.

    The Government asks the Low Pay Commission to make NMW rate recommendations each year based on maximising the wages of the low paid without damaging employment opportunities. The Low Pay Commission will recommend the October 2016 NMW rates and indicative rates for 2017 by the end of February 2016.

  • Baroness Massey of Darwen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Massey of Darwen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Massey of Darwen on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what additional steps, if any, they will take to monitor and enforce compliance with the School Admissions Code in the light of their decision to limit those who can formally object to school admission arrangements; and what estimate they have made of what percentage of the objections submitted to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator by (1) parents, and (2) groups or organisations, were successful between 2012 and 2015 inclusive.

    Lord Nash

    The School Admissions Code exists to ensure that places in all state funded schools are allocated in a fair and transparent manner. The Department for Education will shortly be consulting on a package of changes to the Code, which will include measures to assist parents and promote fairness and transparency. The proposed changes in relation to objections are designed to ensure that the Schools Adjudicator is able to focus on the concerns parents may have about the fairness of the admission arrangements of their local school and is not held up by the need to also consider large numbers of objections referred by interest groups from outside the area. Local authorities will continue to have the right to object so that they are able to act on behalf of the local community.

  • Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass on 2016-02-29.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are aware of the recent case of 15 year-old Matthew Garnett who, as a consequence of being on the autistic spectrum, has been confined to a psychiatric intensive care unit for six months without having been moved to a more appropriate care facility, and what action they are taking to prevent such cases arising in future.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    We are aware of this case, and we welcome NHS England’s confirmation that Matthew will be moving to a more appropriate facility in the next month.

    Delivery of appropriate care for the few individuals with very complex needs will always be a challenge. The people who can best assess local care needs and ensure that those needs are met are local commissioners, though some people will require care that is commissioned on a national level for rare conditions, including some mental health conditions with comorbidities such as autistic spectrum disorders or learning disabilities. This includes inpatient treatment for children and young people with mental health conditions.

    NHS England is continuing Care and Treatment Reviews for children and young people with learning disabilities in inpatient settings and 52 week residential schools. These reviews ensure the care and setting are appropriate to the child or young person’s needs, and where needed, allow planned moves to community-based care or more appropriate inpatient accommodation.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2016-03-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to ring-fencing funding provided to local authorities for childcare.

    Lord Nash

    We have already announced over £1bn more for the early years entitlements within the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant by 2019-20, which includes £300m per year to uplift the average funding rate to providers. The increase to the funding rate is based on robust evidence from the Review of the Cost of Childcare. We have made clear our commitment to maximise the amount of early years funding which reaches front line childcare providers, and will consult on proposals for achieving this as part of our consultation on early years funding reform later this year.

  • Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl McCartney on 2016-04-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) in each (a) constituency and (b) sport had de-registered, or were in the process of de-registering, from the CASC scheme by 1 April 2016.

    Damian Hinds

    The new regulations for CASCs were introduced on 1 April 2015. All the changes made were necessary to reinforce the original spirit of the scheme requiring clubs to be open to the whole community, with the promotion of participation in sport as their main purpose.

    The Government consulted widely with the sector on all the changes to the scheme. It was aware that there was confusion about the meaning of participation prior to the consultation period for the new regulations. Responses to the consultation were mostly supportive of the 12 times a year rule for participation.

    The scheme does not permit clubs to impose fees which are a significant obstacle to membership. The vast majority of CASCs charge less than £520 for annual membership. To make membership more accessible, clubs with higher costs associated with membership are required to make provisions for those who can’t afford to pay more than £520 a year. If no suitable arrangements are made this club is not able to be a CASC because it is not considered to be open to the whole community.

    During the development of the new CASC regulations the Government was aware of State aid complaint SA.38208 (2014/NN). At the time, the Government was only asked to provide a response to the complaint. The Government provided this response, explaining why the CASC scheme was not State aid. The Commission’s subsequent ruling confirmed this view.

    Since the introduction of the new regulations all CASCs were given a 12-month period of grace to make any necessary changes to remain in the scheme. The Government wrote to all registered CASCs explaining the new regulations and asked clubs to complete a self-assessment checklist on income, membership and participation levels. They were also asked to contact HMRC if they did not meet the new requirements.

    From 1 April 2016, 500 clubs have been deregistered as CASCs, affecting some 35 different types of sport.

    Since 2010 there has been a steady increase in the numbers of CASCs registered in the scheme. Although the Government does not yet have figures for clubs registered as at 5 April 2016, the breakdown of figures since 2010 is:

    5630 – 5 April 2010

    5976 – 5 April 2011

    6165 – 5 April 2012

    6334 – 5 April 2013

    6571 – 5 April 2014

    6715 – 5 April 2015.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Ashworth on 2016-06-13.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on what date the Inter-Ministerial Group on Corruption last met.

    Matthew Hancock

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 June 2016 to UIN: 38864.

  • Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Tomlinson on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of support for post-traumatic stress disorder provided to (a) serving regular armed forces personnel, (b) serving reserve personnel and (c) veterans.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Ministry of Defence is committed to looking after the mental health of our Armed Forces, and our medical services are configured to provide community-based healthcare in line with national best practice. In the UK, we have 14 military Departments of Community Mental Health (DCMHs), which are located to be convenient for major centres of military population, and which support the provision of healthcare that is available through Service primary care facilities. The DCMH mental health teams comprise psychiatrists and mental health nurses, with access to clinical psychologists and mental health social workers. A wide range of psychiatric and psychological treatments are available, including medication, psychological therapies, and environmental adjustment where appropriate. In-patient care, when necessary, is provided in dedicated psychiatric units through a central contract with an in-patient psychiatric care provider.

    Mobilised Reservists are entitled to the same mental healthcare from the Defence Medical Services as their Regular colleagues. Both current and former Reservists can access the Veterans and Reserves Mental Health Programme (VRMHP) for a full mental health assessment, followed by a course of treatment at a military Department of Community Mental Health (DCMH) if their condition is assessed as attributable to operational experience. We have been actively engaged with the Department of Health to ensure that NHS GPs are aware of this service, and of the referral process.

    Veterans in England, Scotland and Wales are entitled to priority treatment at NHS hospitals for Service-related conditions (subject to the clinical need of all patients) and a Veterans’ Transition Protocol ensures any Service person discharged with a diagnosed mental health disorder is handed over appropriately to the NHS in England and the Devolved Administrations. A number of enhancements have been made to the care available for them, including more NHS veterans mental health nurses, follow-up of Service leavers twelve months after discharge, and a 24-hour mental health helpline sponsored by Combat Stress.