Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he plans to announce a decision on the planning appeal submitted by the Route 39 free school in Torridge.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    This decision has now been announced. The announcement was made on Thursday 18 February.

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many applicants to the Future Teaching Scholars programme to date have been (a) women and (b) men.

    Nick Gibb

    To date we have received applications from 27 women and 23 men. We remain confident that we will secure 110 scholars by the end of summer 2016.

  • William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Wragg on 2016-03-24.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of child benefit payments to non-UK citizens.

    Damian Hinds

    The Government has made it clear that UK rates of Child Benefit should not be paid to EU children overseas. The Government paper ‘The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union’ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf sets out what was agreed at the February European Council.

  • Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect of participation in out-of-court restorative justice on re-offending rates.

    Mike Penning

    It is vital that victims see swift and certain justice delivered to their offender. It is also vital that victims of crime get the help they need to cope with, and recover from, crime.

    That is why we have protected the victims’ budget and given Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) greater flexibility to decide which services are needed in their local area. Restorative Justice can be a part of a wide range of services offered to victims of crime, and we are providing advice and guidance to help PCCs deliver it.

    There has been no assessment on the impact on reoffending rates of participation in restorative justice as part of an out of court disposal.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michelle Donelan on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of registering bicycles with the DVLA.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Our assessment of the registration of bicycles indicates it would require a licensing process similar to that for cars and motorcycles. As there are in excess of 20 million bicycles in Great Britain and many change hands through second hand sales, keeping track of this would be difficult and expensive. The costs of its administration would far outweigh the revenue received and indeed any benefits received from it.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who authorised provision under the Public Duty Cost Allowance for the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam after he left office as Deputy Prime Minister.

    Ben Gummer

    The purpose of the Public Duties Cost Allowance is to assist former Prime Ministers with the costs of continuing to fulfil duties associated with their previous position in public life. Exceptionally, the then Prime Minister agreed that the former Deputy Prime Minister , the Rt Hon Member for Sheffield Hallam, should be able to have access to the allowance to recognise the special position he held in the Coalition Government. Other former Deputy Prime Ministers are not eligible for the allowance. The allowance is set at a maximum limit of £115,000 per annum. The amounts paid are a reimbursement of expenses, accounted for in the published Cabinet Office Annual Reports and Accounts. The former Deputy Prime Minister is eligible for the allowance from the date of leaving ministerial office for the duration of this Parliament.

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the RAC, AA and other motoring organisations regarding the timely conduct of pothole repairs on roads in England.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Department for Transport discusses a wide range of issues with the RAC, AA and other motoring organisations with respect to highways maintenance and other issues that affect road users.

    The Department for Transport is investing over £12 billion in this Parliament for highways maintenance. This comprises over £6 billion to local highway authorities in England, outside London, including £250 million between now and 2021 to help repair potholes and other defects.

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much is available to each NHS trust to fund new drugs and treatments assessed and recommended by NICE.

    George Freeman

    The Government believes that National Health Service commissioners and providers are best placed to decide how to allocate their budgets to deliver improvements in the outcomes for patients.

    There is no separately identified ring-fenced funding stream associated with drugs and treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NHS commissioners are legally required to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-11-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will make an assessment of the implications for its policies of the report by Transparency International UK entitled, Gold Rush, published 15 October 2015; if her Department will retrospectively examine what transparency declarations can be required of existing investors who entered the UK on Tier 1 visas; what steps her Department takes to assess whether funds coming into the UK via those visas have been gained illicitly; and if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of strengthening those measures to address that issue.

    James Brokenshire

    The control of and provenance of the investment funds is central to the assessment of all Tier 1 (Investor) applications. In November 2014, we introduced new powers to refuse visa applications where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Tier 1 (Investor) migrant is not in control and at liberty to freely invest the funds; where the funds were obtained unlawfully; or where the character, conduct and associations of a third party providing the funds mean granting the application is not conducive to public good.

    To further strengthen the route against abuse, we now require all Tier 1 (Investor) migrants to have opened an account with a Financial Conduct Authority-regulated bank for the purposes of making their qualified investment. Additionally, if an investor is applying to enter the UK, then they must provide proof of criminal record checks. All Tier 1 (Investor) migrants are liable to have their leave to enter or remain curtailed in certain circumstances, for example if they are discovered to have used deception in seeking a grant of leave, or if they cease to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Those who are already in the route are subject to further checks on their investment and criminality when they make an extension or indefinite leave to remain application.

    We keep all immigration routes under review. We will make further changes to tackle abuse of the Tier 1 (Investor) route if required.

  • Danny Kinahan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Danny Kinahan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2015-11-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of removing treatments for multiple myeloma from the Cancer Drugs Fund on investment in clinical trials for that condition in the UK.

    George Freeman

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 September 2015 to Question 10093.