Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Keith Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Keith Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Vaz on 2014-01-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many non-UK EEA nationals had dependants eligible to receive child benefit where the dependant is (a) in the UK and (b) outside the UK on 1 January 2014; and how much has been paid in such a fashion in each of the last three years.

    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.

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Catherine McKinnell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of the costs awarded to the Crown Prosecution Service under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in (a) each financial year since 2010 and (b) 2015-16 to date.

    Robert Buckland

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain data on the value of costs awarded to the CPS but does have data on the value of costs recovered following the award of costs.

    A table showing the value of costs recovered and paid to the CPS, following the award of costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in (a) each financial year since 2010 and (b) 2015-16 to date is presented below.

    2015/16

    2014/15

    2013/14

    2012/13

    2011/12

    2010/11

    2009/10

    (Qtr 1)

    Costs recovered (£M)

    10.7

    35.3

    37.7

    39.6

    42.3

    44.6

    40.6

    The value of costs recovered has reduced in total but has increased in terms of the average cost recovered per defendant since 2010/11. The total CPS caseload has also reduced since 2010. This reduction in CPS caseload is due, in part, to the transfer of prosecutions from the CPS to the police as part of the police led prosecution initiative.

    Notes: The figures in the table are compiled from returns sent to the CPS by HM Courts and Tribunals Service. The amount reported for 2015/16 reflects the first quarter’s returns only. Returns for the second quarter are not yet available.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion Champion is taking to ensure (a) improved engagement and (b) increased promotion rates of under-represented groups.

    Matthew Hancock

    To govern modern Britain, the Civil Service needs to look and sound likemodern Britain. We need access to the broadest possible pool of talent, drawing on peoplefrom all backgrounds and all parts of the country.

    We have published the Talent Action Plan which introduced the ‘Removing Barriers to Success’ programme’, overseen by the Diversity and Inclusion Champion, Sue Owen. We have introduced Shared Parental Leave, launched the Civil Service Job Share Finder and made sure all-male shortlists and selection panels for senior positions are by exception only. We are also increasing the number of places on our development programme aimed at disabled, BAME and LGB&T Civil Servants from 200 to 1000.

    We are also implementing a number of initiatives to recruit individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds onto the Fast Stream and Fast Track Apprenticeship schemes, including internship programmes, schools and colleges mentoring and discovery days, work experience programmes and engagement with universities with a high representation of lower socio-economic students.

  • Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and agencies overseen by his Department will be affected by that regulation; and what estimate he has made of the potential liability of his Department, its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed regulation.

    Brandon Lewis

    Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and our negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, NDPBs and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.

  • Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, in which countries UK defence attachés are posted.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    There are resident Defence Attachés in the following countries:

    Afghanistan – Kabul

    Algeria – Algiers

    Argentina – Buenos Aires

    Australia – Canberra

    Austria – Vienna

    Bahrain – Manama

    Estonia – Tallinn

    Bangladesh – Dhaka

    Bosnia and Herzegovina – Sarajevo

    Brazil – Brasilia

    Brunei – Bandar Seri Begawan

    Burma – Rangoon

    Canada – Ottawa

    Chile – Santiago

    China – Beijing

    Colombia – Bogota

    Croatia – Zagreb

    Cyprus – Nicosia

    Czech Republic – Prague

    Denmark – Copenhagen

    Egypt – Cairo

    Ethiopia – Addis Ababa

    France – Paris

    Georgia – Tbilisi

    Germany – Berlin

    Ghana – Accra

    Greece – Athens

    India – New Delhi

    Indonesia – Jakarta

    Iraq – Baghdad

    Ireland – Dublin

    Israel – Tel Aviv

    Italy – Rome

    Jamaica – Kingston

    Japan – Tokyo

    Jordan – Amman

    Kazakhstan – Astana

    Kenya – Nairobi

    Korea – Seoul

    Kuwait – Kuwait City

    Lebanon – Beirut

    Libya – Tripoli

    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Skopje

    Malaysia – Kuala Lumpur

    Mexico – Mexico City

    Morocco – Rabat

    Nepal – Kathmandu

    Netherlands – The Hague

    New Zealand – Wellington

    Nigeria – Abuja

    Norway – Oslo

    Oman – Muscat

    Pakistan – Islamabad

    Poland – Warsaw

    Qatar – Doha

    Romania – Bucharest

    Russia – Moscow

    Saudi Arabia – Riyadh

    Serbia – Belgrade

    Sierra Leone – Freetown

    Singapore – Singapore City

    Somalia – Mogadishu

    South Africa – Pretoria

    South Sudan – Juba

    Spain – Madrid

    Sudan – Khartoum

    Sweden – Stockholm

    Thailand – Bangkok

    Turkey – Ankara

    Uganda – Kampala

    Ukraine – Kyiv

    United Arab Emirates – Abu Dhabi

    United States of America – UK Mission to UN

    United States of America – Washington

    Uzbekistan – Tashkent

    Vietnam – Hanoi

    Yemen – Sana’a

    Zimbabwe – Harare

    There is Non-Resident Accreditation for a further 82 countries.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 15 October 2015 to Question 11023, how many developers are developing proposals at each of the sites referred to in that Answer; what indicative electricity strike rates have been discussed with those developers; and what (a) generating capacity and (b) potential timescales have been discussed with each developer in each case.

    Andrea Leadsom

    I set out the position below. It is too soon to say what any strike price might be for these projects.

    Site

    Developer

    Proposed generating capacity

    Potential timescale for operation

    Wylfa

    Horizon

    2.7 GW

    mid-2020s

    Oldbury

    Horizon

    2.7 GW

    to be confirmed

    Moorside

    NuGen

    3.6 GW

    mid-2020s

    Sizewell

    EDF/CGN

    3.2 GW

    to be confirmed

    Bradwell

    EDF/CGN

    to be confirmed

    to be confirmed

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect on agricultural land of invasive non-native waterfowl.

    George Eustice

    A 2010 report produced by the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) (part funded by Defra) estimated the annual costs of non-native geese and swans to agriculture to be approximately £1.5 million. These costs included damage to crops due to grazing, trampling and reduction in soil quality, as well as costs of applying mitigation measures.

  • Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Poulter on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent reports he has received about Iran testing a guided long-range ballistic missile.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    Reports that Iran carried out a ballistic missile test earlier this month are highly concerning. We believe such a test constitutes clearly a violation of Iran’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. We have taken appropriate action to bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council.

  • Charlotte Leslie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Charlotte Leslie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlotte Leslie on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has had discussions with medical organisations on the implications of the recent European Court of Justice ruling against Ireland on the Working Time Directive.

    Ben Gummer

    The Department has commissioned Health Education England to take forward the recommendations of the task group led by Professor Sir Norman Williams into the impact of the European Working Time Directive on the training of junior doctors.

    Health Education England has set up a specific working group to take this work forward, with membership including the Royal College of Surgeons and other stakeholders. The group is taking forward work on all the taskforce recommendations. This includes looking at the categorisation of training time and will consider the impact of the recent European Court of Justice ruling on Ireland. Health Education England will deliver an interim report to the Department in due course.

  • Robert Neill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Robert Neill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Neill on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which organisation provides the secretariat for the NICE Implementation Collaborative; what the Collaborative’s current priorities and work programmes are; what funding the Collaborative has received from the public purse since it was established; and if he will make a statement.

    George Freeman

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has advised that it has provided the secretariat function for the NICE Implementation Collaborative (NIC) since January 2014 as part of a wider memorandum of understanding with NHS England. This year, the NIC agreed to undertake work in the following four areas, each of which was agreed because of their potential to generate learning about how to support uptake of NICE guidance:

    – Improving patient outcomes for patients with non ST Elevation acute Coronary Syndromes;

    – Improving Tuberculosis screening and data collection across health and social care;

    – Identifying appropriate treatment pathways for people with moderate alcohol consumption across health and social care; and

    – Increasing the knowledge base about the factors that increase use of technologies building on previous National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) research.

    NHS England has responsibility for funding any project costs and projects liaise with NHS England to access these funds.

    NHS England has advised that it provided £4,000 in 2014-15 and up to £10,000 in 2015-16.