Tag: Parliamentary Question

Christina Rees – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christina Rees on 2015-10-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether he intends that the apprenticeships levy will replace the one-third contributions for post-19 apprenticeships as part of the Richard Review reforms.

Nick Boles

My Rt hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce further details of the apprenticeship levy at the Spending Review, including the scope and rate of the levy and how it will operate with respect to the Devolved Administrations.

01/12/2022
Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2015-10-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the London and South Coast rail corridor study to be published.

Claire Perry

The Department anticipates receiving the findings of the London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study by the end of 2015. The Government will subsequently consider the timeframe for releasing the study findings, including our response.

01/12/2022
Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-10-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what his Department’s expenditure on the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) was in each year from 2010-11 to 2014-15; and what his Department’s projected expenditure on the BSOG is in 2015-16.

Andrew Jones

Total expenditure on the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) in each year from 2010-11 to 2014-15 in accrual terms and rounded to the nearest £million is set out below.

2010-11 £445m

2011-12 £441m

2012-13 £344m

2013-14 £291m

2014/15 £253m

Since 1 October 2013, the BSOG which was previously paid to bus operators for running bus services under franchise to Transport for London (TfL) in London has been incorporated into the general grant paid to TfL and the Greater London Authority. The figures given above exclude some £47 million paid to TfL/GLA in this way for 2013/14 and some £93 million paid to them for 2014/15.

The figures given for 2013/14 onwards are made up of (i) BSOG paid to bus companies and community transport operators for running services outside London, (ii) BSOG devolved to local transport authorities in the five areas which have been designated as Better Bus Areas, and (iii) BSOG for tendered (non-commercially viable) services outside London for which the funding has been devolved to individual local authorities since 1 January 2014.

As BSOG is a demand-led grant, it is too early to give an accurate projection of spend for 2015/16. However, we would expect it to be broadly similar to that for 2014-15.

01/12/2022
Lord Ahmed – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ahmed on 2015-10-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether restrictions were imposed on the travel of Narendra Modi; if so, whether such restrictions have been lifted; and if so, why.

Lord Bates

The Home Office do not routinely comment on individual cases. The Home Office has obligations in law to protect this information.

01/12/2022
Lord Green of Deddington – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2015-10-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 19 October (HL2532), which specific elements of European law require the right to challenge an adverse asylum decision via an effective remedy; and whether the nature of such a remedy is prescribed.

Lord Bates

Article 39 of the Asylum Procedures Directive requires that EU member states must provide an effective remedy before a Court or Tribunal in respect of a decision taken on a person’s asylum application.

The nature of the remedy is not prescribed beyond requiring it to be before a Court or Tribunal.

01/12/2022
Dr Julian Lewis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dr Julian Lewis on 2014-02-26.

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether any records relating to the loss of the escort aircraft carrier HMS Dasher in March 1943 have (a) been retained from transfer to and (b) remain closed in the National Archives; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Francis Maude

Cabinet Office holds no records relating to HMS Dasher.

01/12/2022
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2014-02-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many civil servants have been transferred from London and the South-East of England to the West Midlands since May 2010.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Relocation of Government staff outside of London and the South East continues to be considered, amongst other options, to deliver the savings set out at the Spending Review and increase the efficiency of the Government’s estate. Reducing and rationalising the estate could result in relocations, although there is no centrally driven relocation target to this effect. Workforce planning is primarily the responsibility of each individual Department to determine.

01/12/2022
Dr Matthew Offord – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dr Matthew Offord on 2014-02-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to increase the average hours a week of contracted education provided for 15 to 17 year olds in custody.

Jeremy Wright

At present 15-17 year olds in young offender institutions (YOIs) receive an average of only 12 hours contracted education a week. We have recently set out our plans for transforming youth custody and putting education at the heart of detention, and at the same time launched a competition for new education contracts in public sector YOIs which will more than double the time spend young people spend in education. In addition, we are seeking to put education at the heart of the YOI regime by bringing the head teacher overseeing education into the senior management team of the establishment.

01/12/2022

Mark Reckless – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Reckless on 2014-01-15.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate by country of residence of the child he has made of the number of migrants residing in the UK who claimed benefits on behalf of children living abroad during 2013.

Nicky Morgan

HMRC are not able to provide the information in the manner requested. HMRC do not record the nationality of the claimant receiving Child Benefit for children living in another member state.

Published Child Benefit statistics provide annual estimates of the number of families and children claiming. The latest available (August 2012) show that there were 7.92 million families, responsible for 13.77 million children and qualifying young people receiving Child Benefit.

The main purpose of Child Benefit is to support families in the UK. Consequently, the rules generally do not provide for them to be paid in respect of children who live abroad.

Nevertheless, Child Benefit is a family benefit under EC Regulation 883/2004. This regulation protects the social security rights of nationals of all member states of the European economic area, including the UK, and Switzerland when they exercise their rights of free movement under EU law.

HMRC holds information on the number of Child Benefit awards under EC Regulation 883/2004. As at 31 December 2013, there were 20,400 ongoing Child Benefit awards under the EC Regulation in respect of 34.268 children living in another member state.

This is a fall of 3,682 (15.3%) awards in respect of 5,903 (14.7%) fewer children since 31 December 2012.

The breakdown by member state is as follows:

*We have withheld the number where it is fewer than 5, as there is risk that the information could be attributed to an identifiable person, which would prejudice their right to privacy and would therefore be a breach of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act.

Child Benefit

Country of residence of children	Number of awards	Number of children

Austria	23	37
Belgium	75	140
Bulgaria	186	245
Croatia	*5	*5
Cyprus	39	61
Czech Republic	124	203
Denmark	13	23
Estonia	45	65
Finland	12	23
France	789	1429
Germany	283	495
Greece	44	69
Hungary	136	196
Iceland	*5	*5
Italy	156	273
Latvia	797	1091
Liechtenstein	0	0
Lithuania	1215	1712
Luxembourg	7	14
Malta	15	22
Norway	30	61
Poland	13174	22093
Portugal	202	309
Republic of Ireland	1231	2505
Romania	230	392
Slovakia	692	1232
Slovenia	11	21
Spain	600	1019
Sweden	49	95
Switzerland	77	150
The Netherlands	142	288

Totals	20400	34268

As announced in the 2014 Budget, to prevent EEA migrants claiming benefits they are not entitled to, the Government will increase compliance checks to establish whether EEA migrants meet the entitlement conditions to receive Child Benefit

Under domestic law, in order to claim Child Benefit EEA Migrants must be present in the UK, ordinarily resident and have a right to reside in the UK and their children must live in the UK.

The recent changes to migrants’ access to benefits announced by the Government sends a strong message that the UK benefit system is not open to abuse, as well as deterring those who may seek residence in the UK primarily to claim benefits.

Strengthening compliance checks will help prevent EEA migrants from claiming, and continuing to claim, benefits they are not entitled to. Checks will be applied to both new claims and existing awards.

01/12/2022

Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the statement made on 14 October by the President of the European Court of Justice that there is a strong link between the Court and European integration.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is defined in Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as to “ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed”. The TEU also provides, in Article 5, that “the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein” and that “competences not conferred upon the Union remain with the Member States”. European law, including the judgments of the CJEU, has direct effect in this country because it has been given that authority by Acts of Parliament.

01/12/2022