Tag: Parliamentary Question

Sharon Hodgson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sharon Hodgson on 2016-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what proportion of school pupils aged 18 or under had either a Statement of Special Educational Needs or an Education, Health and Care Plan in each of the last five years.

Edward Timpson

The transition period from statements to Education, Health and Care plans (EHCPs) runs until April 2018. Every local authority has published an individual Local Transition Plan setting out the timings for transfers to the new system. We are monitoring local authority progress and published figures about transition up to January 2015, returned by local authorities, in the Special Educational Needs in England Statistical First Release of May 2015[1]. We will publish the figures up to January 2016 in May 2016.

The Department does not collect information on the number of children who are home educated. Some local authorities choose to maintain registers so that parents can voluntarily register children being educated at home.

The number and proportion of school pupils who had a Statement of Special Educational Needs or an EHCP in each of the last five years is as follows:

x	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Pupils with statements or EHCPs	224,210	226,125	229,390	232,190	236,165
Pupils on roll	8,123,865	8,178,200	8,249,810	8,331,385	8,438,145
Incidence (%)	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.8[2]

The number of permanent and fixed period exclusions received by pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs in each of the last five years for which data is available is as follows:

x	2009/10	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14
Fixed period exclusions	37,140	36,740	35,640	32,210	33,190
Permanent exclusions	420	430	380	330	330[3]

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-special-educational-needs-sen

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england-january-2015

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-exclusions

“

01/01/2023

Rachael Maskell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rachael Maskell on 2016-05-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to review the current time limits for abortion.

Jane Ellison

The Abortion Act 1967 sets out that an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks gestation only where:

― the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman Section 1(1)(b); or

― the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated Section 1(1)(c); or

― there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped Section 1(1)(d).

In England and Wales it is accepted Parliamentary practice that proposals for changes to the Abortion Act come from backbench members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes. The Government has no plans to review this legislation.

01/01/2023
Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-07-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, within what period for time a mandatory reconsideration must be completed for a personal independence payment application.

Penny Mordaunt

We introduced Mandatory Reconsideration to make the system as fair as possible for those going through it. It gives people the opportunity to present new evidence and to have their case looked at again.

The Department for Work and Pensions does not have a clearance time target for Mandatory Reconsiderations. Claimants have one calendar month from the date of their Personal Independence Payment (PIP) decision to request a Mandatory Reconsideration. Further information on Mandatory Reconsideration in PIP can be found at https://www.gov.uk/pip/appeals.

“

01/01/2023
Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Trade

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-10-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many civil servants work for his Department in EU member states excluding the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Greg Hands

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on 13 October, UIN 47419 and 47396.

01/01/2023
Danny Kinahan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2015-10-27.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to restore the cider differential.

Damian Hinds

The government recognises that small cider producers are a traditional part of rural economies and its support for small cider producers has helped create a diverse and vibrant market, improving consumer choice and creating jobs. To support the wider industry, at the March 2015 Budget the duty on lower strength cider was cut by 2 per cent.

01/01/2023
Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports from the Shan Human Rights Foundation that between 9 and 12 November the Burmese Army carried out shelling and aerial bombing of Mong Nawng and that those attacks constitute war crimes.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are concerned by reports of continued fighting in Shan State, including around Mong Nawng and Wanhai, which the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates has displaced approximately 6,000 people since 6 October. Our Ambassador in Rangoon raised our concerns about the conflict in Shan with the Burmese military on 20 November. The UK has played a leading role in supporting efforts to broker ceasefire agreements, funding expert advice to both sides in support of dialogue and peacemaking.

We welcomed the signing of a ceasefire agreement on 15 October and we continue to urge armed groups who did not sign the ceasefire and the Burmese government to engage in ceasefire talks to bring the conflict to an end.

The UK has made no assessment of whether these allegations amount to war crimes. Any determination as to whether specific international crimes have occurred is a matter for an international judicial decision rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes.

01/01/2023
Clive Efford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Efford on 2016-01-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will request representatives of the British Embassy to attend the public hearing in the case of the imprisoned academic Miguel Angel Beltran scheduled for January 2016 in the city of Bogota.

Mr Hugo Swire

The British Embassy was notified by the Colombian authorities in August 2015 of the detention of Professor Miguel Angel Beltran, who is held at La Picota prison in Bogotá.

The United Kingdom cannot interfere in the judicial process of another country. We take every opportunity to encourage the Colombian authorities to allow access for all to legal representation, a fair trial without prejudice and minimise delays.

01/01/2023
Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many meetings Ministers and officials of his Department have had with representatives of Uber since July 2015.

Andrew Jones

Details of Ministerial meetings with external organisations are published on a quarterly basis and are available via the gov.uk website.

Since July 2015, representatives of Uber have had one meeting with Department for Transport officials.

01/01/2023
Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

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

To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make representations to bodies campaigning on the EU referendum to ensure that members of the Royal Family are not referred to in the debate on that referendum; and if he will make a statement.

Mr David Cameron

This is a matter for the campaign groups. Government activities in respect of the EU Referendum will be in line with published propriety guidance.

01/01/2023
Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

Mr Julian Brazier

Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires. The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

01/01/2023