UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Laird – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Laird – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-10-29.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much they owe the government of the United States for activities in the First World War; what are the repayment arrangements; and when the repayments will be completed.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The United Kingdom owed around £850 million to the United States for activities in the First World War. However, in 1931 the United States proposed a temporary moratorium on all War debts, to allow for negotiations on debt repayment. Following negotiations, no satisfactory agreement was reached and as such, repayments were cancelled between the United Kingdom and United States. The last repayment from the United Kingdom to the United States for debt from the First World War was made in the financial year 1932-33.

  • Dawn Butler – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Dawn Butler – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dawn Butler on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the safety of British tourists in Tunisia.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We continue to advise against all but essential travel to Tunisia. We advise any British nationals who choose to travel to or remain in Tunisia to check that their insurance policy provides adequate cover, to be especially vigilant and to follow the advice of the Tunisian security authorities.

    We have almost doubled our support for Tunisia this year. We are working closely with the Tunisian government to improve their protective security and build their capacity to deter and respond to terrorist threats. We are also working with professionals in the tourist industry in popular tourist areas such as Sousse and Hammamet to build their awareness of the threat and to put in place appropriate security measures.

  • Phil Boswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Phil Boswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Phil Boswell on 2016-01-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the Government will adjust the points-based visa criteria to reflect differences in regional average income levels.

    James Brokenshire

    Salary requirements form part of the criteria for Tier 2 of the Points Based System for immigration – the skilled work route. For the future, the Government intends that employers should only bring in workers from outside Europe where they have genuine skills shortages or require highly-specialised experts. In June last year, we commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to advise on how to achieve this, but with sufficient flexibility to include high value roles and key public service workers.

    Among other things, the MAC was asked to advise on minimum salary levels, and to consider the regional impact of all its recommendations. The MAC has now submitted its advice to the Home Secretary and is expected to publish the report shortly. We will consider the findings carefully.

  • Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many women have died (a) in pregnancy and (b) during childbirth in each of the last 10 years.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much the Government expects to accrue to the public purse from the planned annual charge on Australian and New Zealand citizens for use of the NHS.

    James Brokenshire

    The Impact Assessment published on 4 February 2016, alongside the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016, estimates that a net additional £41 million could be raised for the NHS in present value, over 5 years, in 2016-17 prices, by applying the health charge to Australian and New Zealand nationals and reducing the annual health charge for Youth Mobility Scheme visa applicants from £200 to £150.

    The Impact Assessment can be viewed at the link below and is also available in the Vote Office (Commons): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2016/9780111143278/impacts

    These changes are subject to affirmative resolution and will be debated in the House of Commons and House of Lords. If they are approved by Parliament, the Government plans to implement the changes from 6 April.

    The Government think it only fair that Australian and New Zealand nationals contribute to the UK’s health service in the same way as other non-EEA nationals. The changes will only apply to Australian and New Zealand nationals who plan to enter the UK for a temporary period of more than six months; visitors will not need to pay the charge and Australians and New Zealanders will continue to benefit from our reciprocal healthcare agreements.

    Further, the Government has in recognition of the close and important links between our countries, agreed during discussions with the Australian and New Zealand Governments, to reduce the health charge that applies to the Youth Mobility Scheme from £200 to £150 in line with students. This is the category used by more than half of Australian and New Zealand nationals granted visa’s to the UK.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will make it his policy to conduct a systematic analysis of existing science and research-based infrastructure in the UK for the purpose of guiding his Department’s future investment priorities.

    Joseph Johnson

    The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is considering the National Audit Office’s recent report on capital investment in science projects, and will respond in due course.

    All funding decisions are subject to BIS and HM Treasury’s rigorous scrutiny process and must pass a robust business case process before spending is approved.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-04-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department plans to take under the Northern Powerhouse schools strategy to expand the best academy chains in the North; what the timetable is for that expansion; and how much funding will be allocated for that expansion.

    Nick Gibb

    Our White Paper, Education Excellence Everywhere, sets out the range of support we will offer to schools across England.

    Where schools are failing, Regional Schools Commissioners will identify a suitable academy sponsor to turn them around. In areas where there are too few sponsors, we will recruit new sponsors, including high-performing schools and more sponsors from business, charity and philanthropy. We will also encourage existing sponsors to expand, increasing incentives and minimising barriers, learning from the investment we have already made through the Northern Sponsor Fund.

    For other struggling schools, we will ensure there is nationwide coverage of system leaders (teaching schools and National Leaders of Education), who will be expected to work with weaker schools to support them to improve. To help achieve this, we will improve how we designate system leaders by introducing a more sophisticated approach based on timely and accurate data rather than relying heavily on Ofsted judgements. We will also partner schools with the potential to become strong system leaders with existing teaching schools and National Leaders of Education.

    Through the Department’s strategy for Achieving Excellence Areas, we will target our existing programmes to secure sufficient high quality teachers, leaders, system leaders, sponsors and members of governing boards on the areas of greatest need. At the Budget, the Government announced that we will invest an additional £20 million a year to build on this strategy to raise education standards across the Northern Powerhouse. The allocation of this funding will depend on the identified need and will be reassessed each year, based on the evidence.

    For the additional funding announced in the budget, decisions on how the funding will be allocated for the 2016-17 financial year will be made by the autumn of this year and will be informed by the emerging findings of the review by Sir Nick Weller. We will be publishing the terms of reference for Sir Nick Weller’s review shortly.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to make the Cefaly headband for the treatment of migraines available on the NHS.

    Jane Ellison

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published interventional procedure guidance (IP) on transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the supraorbital nerve (which the Cefaly headband provides) for treating and preventing migraine in May 2016. Current evidence on its use raises no major safety concerns, but the evidence on its efficacy is limited in quantity and quality. The NICE has therefore recommended that this procedure should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research.

    IP guidance does not consider how much the procedures would cost the National Health Service, or whether the NHS should allocate funding for them. These decisions are made at a local NHS level and usually on a case-by-case basis. This means that if the NICE has issued guidance recommending any given IP, the NHS is not obliged to provide it.

  • Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether welfare claimants receive refunds for postage and other costs incurred in obtaining a doctor’s certificate as required by his Department and ensuring its safe transmission by post.

    Caroline Nokes

    For DWP purposes a statement of fitness for work (SOFFW) can be obtained from a GP at no cost to the claimant.

    DWP does not refund postage or other costs associated with obtaining a SOFFW. Claimants are notified when making a claim that there is a requirement to supply a SOFFW to meet the ESA entitlement conditions. To support this DWP provides options for postage, either a Freepost Licence code or a pre-paid envelope at no cost to the claimant. These are handled by Royal Mail and subject to their governance and safeguarding arrangements.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments in scrutinising the suitability of business appointments for former Ministers in government.

    Ben Gummer

    The Government believes that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments discharges its remit effectively and efficiently.