Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to amend sentencing guidelines to reduce the amount of time that offenders spend in prison.

    Andrew Selous

    Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, who must follow guidelines unless it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. Sentencing guidelines are issued by the independent Sentencing Council to promote consistency and proportionality in sentencing. The guidelines are available on the Sentencing Council website.

  • The Lord Bishop of Coventry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Lord Bishop of Coventry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Lord Bishop of Coventry on 2015-12-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Iraq’s National Identity Law, and the impact that it will have on religious minorities in Iraq and their right to freedom of religion or belief.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are concerned by Iraq’s proposed National Identity Law, in particular Article 26 which could restrict freedom of religion or belief, which is a basic human right.

    We welcome the resolution adopted by the majority of the Iraqi Council of Representatives on 17 November declaring its intention to amend the law.

    The National Identity Law is yet to be discussed since Parliament has been in recess. We will continue to monitor this issue closely.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Greg Mulholland – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2016-01-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how much funding his Department has given to the Hospitality Guild for creating centres of excellence in Asian cookery.

    Nick Boles

    The ‘Centres of Excellence in Asian Cookery’ pilots were organised by People 1st, which was operating on behalf of the Hospitality Guild, which received funding from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) through their grant with BIS. People 1st reported that during the period of the pilot (October 2011 to September 2013), 79 people started training at the Centres of Excellence for Asian and Oriental cuisine, out of which 46 completed the pre-employment course, 22 completed work experience and 7 moved onto an apprenticeship.

    £205,961 was provided to fund the Asian Cookery campaign. In total, UKCES allocated £1,745,785 to create the Hospitality Guild and to promote skills training, apprenticeships and innovation in the hospitality industry through a range of measures. These included apprenticeships as chefs, baristas, bar staff and hotel management, training provider accreditation, work placements and launching the Hospitality Guild Portal where careers tools, an employer guide and a vacancy matching service can be accessed.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 January 2016, WS499, how much the Government spent on work on the criminal legal aid tendering process before deciding not to go ahead with that process.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-03-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to page 24 of the Accelerated Access Review, published in October 2015, what steps he is taking to ensure that drugs that target the genetically validated targets (a) PCSK9 and (b) BCL2 are introduced into routine NHS care; and if he will make a statement.

    Ben Gummer

    The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government on reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies making our country the best place in the world to design, develop and deploy these products. The terms of the reference for the review focus on faster access to innovations, which may include drugs that target genetically validated targets such as PCSK9 and BCL2.

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the effects on the incidence of hearing loss of mobile phones and other similar devices which do not have a volume control; and if he will make a statement.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department has made no assessment of the effects on the incidence of hearing loss of mobile phones and other similar devices which do not have a volume control.

    The Department’s Policy Research Programme is funding COSMOS (Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health) which is conducted by Imperial College London and expected to end in 2019. This study will investigate possible health effects from long term use of mobile phones and other wireless technologies, on a United Kingdom cohort of 105,000 adults. One of the health outcomes investigated will be tinnitus (ringing in the ears). Hearing loss is one of the factors that may be involved in the development of tinnitus and this study will monitor the incidence of tinnitus in mobile phone users.

  • Gordon Marsden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Gordon Marsden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Marsden on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many existing staff from the Skills Funding Agency it is planned will be transferred to the new Institute for Apprenticeships.

    Nick Boles

    The final size and structure of the Institute for Apprenticeships will be determined in due course. No decisions have yet been made about its structure or staffing.

  • Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burgon on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of a FCA-regulated monthly maximum charge on unarranged overdrafts for personal current accounts.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government is clear that consumers must be able to access clear and transparent information about the charges that may apply to financial services products, including bank accounts. In addition, the Financial Conduct Authority requires firms to be clear, fair and not misleading when giving information to consumers, including on fees and charges.

    The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is currently undertaking a market investigation into competition within the retail banking market, including personal current accounts. In its May 2016 provisional decision on remedies, the CMA proposed requiring banks to take steps including: a monthly maximum charge for unarranged overdrafts; alerts to help customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges; improving comparisons by allowing customers to share data on transactions with other banks and trusted third parties; and regular prompts for customers to check that they are getting good value from their banking provider.

    The CMA’s investigation is ongoing and it is currently consulting on the provisional decision on remedies. The Government welcomes the CMA’s work as a crucial step towards the goal of a highly competitive banking system, and stands ready to take action as necessary once the CMA publishes its final report in the summer.

  • Calum Kerr – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Calum Kerr – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Calum Kerr on 2016-09-12.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to change HM Revenue and Customs practice of not repaying incorrectly withheld arrears or underpaid tax credits to claimants as a lump sum.

    Jane Ellison

    To tackle the problems associated with families overestimating falls in income, since 2007, when claimants report a fall in income during the year, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) adjusts their tax credit payments for the rest of the year to reflect their new income level, but will not include a one-off payment for the earlier part of the year. At the end of the year, their award is finalised when their actual income is known. If they have been underpaid, a further payment will then be made. However, provisions are in place to make arrears payments to claimants suffering financial hardship.

    The purpose of withholding the payment is to reduce the number and size of any overpayments and prevent customers incurring debt.

    HMRC has provisions in place to support those customers who are suffering financial hardship and in those circumstances any withheld payments can be released and paid to the customer without having to wait for the claim to be finalised. There are no plans to alter the current practice.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether his Department plans to respond to the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research evaluation study, No evidence Troubled Families Programme has any significant impact on key objectives, published on 17 October 2016.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The National Institute of Economic and Social Research Impact Study was just one of 6 reports comprising the independent evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme. The evaluation found that the programme had many positive achievements. These include:

    • Families feeling more confident and optimistic about being able to cope in the future
    • Joining up local services for families by encouraging a single keyworker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems
    • Raising the quality and capacity of local data systems
    • Better joint working with partners such as Jobcentre Plus

    The data shows that nearly 120,000 of the families on this programme saw their lives improve – more children attending school, youth crime and anti-social behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 families, an adult holding down a job. The evaluation does not dispute this fact.

    Unsurprisingly, the ambitious and innovative impact study which used national administrative datasets to track changes in families circumstances over comparatively short time periods, was unable to specifically attribute positive outcomes achieved in employment, youth crime or school attendance to the Troubled Families Programme.

    This was because at that time the level of change achieved was not significantly different from that seen in a group of families not on the programme with whom comparisons were made. This is not the same, however, as saying that the evaluation shows family outcomes did not improve, as some have wrongly inferred.

    Of course, we will continue to review all evidence of how the programme is working, to learn from it and see if there’s more we can do to help families facing such multiple problems. In fact, we have already adapted the new programme in a number of ways, including extending the length of time over which family outcomes will be tracked – from 12 months to 5 years.