UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will issue guidance to schools on the terminology used for children who do not reach the national standard grade under the proposed reforms to Key Stage 2.

    Nick Gibb

    Schools have been informed that pupil outcomes will be described as meeting or not meeting the expected standard in the Key Stage 2 (KS2) tests. Pupils who do not meet the expected standard in the teacher assessment of writing will be awarded one of a number of standards: Foundations for the expected standard, Early development of the expected standard, Growing development of the expected standard or Working towards the expected standard. The Standards and Testing Agency will provide additional guidance on scaled scores in July 2016.

    Schools are required to report to parents of year 6 children their child’s scaled scores for the KS2 tests; whether they have met the expected standard or not; and their teacher assessed standards for English writing, English reading, mathematics and science. Schools are also required to give parents more general information about the child’s achievements, general progress and attendance record. This is intended to give a more comprehensive view of a child’s overall achievements at the end of the key stage than just their attainment in the national curriculum assessments. The Department does not prescribe the terminology to be used in these reports.

    We expect schools to ensure that children’s achievements are reported in a professional and appropriate manner.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-05-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 18 April (HL7718), what action they will now take to protect land designated as a future Palestinian state.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We continue to robustly raise our concerns over Israel’s expropriation of land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such steps damage the prospects for a two state solution. The UK has consistently called for an end to settlement expansion, which is illegal under international law. If the Israeli government is committed to a two-state solution then it will reverse its policy.

  • Lord Shipley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Shipley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Shipley on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect work to begin on the new court complex in Sunderland under the Court Reform Programme.

    Lord Faulks

    No decisions have been taken regarding the court estate in Sunderland.

    Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) keeps its operational estate under review to make sure that it aligns with the delivery of reformed court and tribunal services. The reform of court and tribunal services which is underway will provide greater access to the courts using modern technology, reducing the need for attendance at court.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-09-12.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take following reports from the UN envoy that, since the diplomatic Quartet called for a halt to the construction of Jewish outposts on Palestinian land, Israeli settlement expansion has increased.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We continue to raise our serious concerns over this issue with the Israeli Government at all levels. On 07 September, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) emphasised our concerns about settlements with Israeli Defence Minister Lieberman during their meeting.

  • Chris Elmore – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Chris Elmore – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Elmore on 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will meet representatives of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign.

    Richard Harrington

    I am responding on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS), as Minister for Pensions with overall responsibility on this issue.

    The previous Minister Baroness Altmann and Minister Shailesh Vara (the previous Under-Secretary of State for DWP) met with representatives of the WASPI group on 29th June 2016 to listen to their concerns. Although WASPI’s ask was unclear, at the time, Ministers indicated that the DWP did not have the available funds to deliver further concessions.

    One other outcome from that meeting was that WASPI agreed to explore options with the relevant All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). A meeting between APPG representatives, the SoS and myself is being taken forward, and consequently there is nothing further to be gained from meeting WASPI representatives directly.

    I should add that I have been quite clear that the Government will make no further changes to the pension age or pay financial redress in lieu of a pension.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Soames – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much was spent from the public purse on reimbursing each non-European Economic Area country with reciprocal healthcare agreements with the UK for health care provided to UK nationals for each financial year from 1997-98 to 2014-15.

    Alistair Burt

    Regarding non-European Economic Area (EEA) countries, including those with reciprocal healthcare agreements with the United Kingdom, we can confirm that no reimbursements are made from the public purse in respect of healthcare provided to UK citizens.

    For non-EEA countries without a reciprocal agreement in place with the UK, it would be for the individual to pay for any healthcare needed and for that reason appropriate travel and medical insurance is highly advisable. Similarly, for those non-EEA countries with whom the UK does have a reciprocal healthcare agreement, no money changes hands between the parties to the agreement. The basis of these agreements is reciprocity – that is, necessary healthcare is provided in most cases free of charge to the visitor and the associated costs are absorbed by either side.

    The information requested on the amount received in reimbursement from EEA countries in only available for the country totals of cash payment for 2007-08 to 2014-15. That information is provided in attached table. We do not hold totals for amounts before 2007-08, as the information is hot held centrally.

  • Adam Afriyie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Adam Afriyie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Adam Afriyie on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make it his policy to publish a health impact assessment on proposals for new airport runways of (a) the health effects of noise and (b) other health effects before the construction of those runways is started.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Government is currently considering the large amount of very detailed analysis contained in the Airports Commission’s final report before taking any decisions on next steps.

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they respond to the chief executive of Shell, who claims that oil and gas companies would be negatively affected in the event that the UK leaves the EU.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in the United Kingdom – so we can get a better deal for our country and secure our future.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the average number of days were from referral to treatment in children and adolescent mental health services in (a) England, (b) London, (c) each London borough and (d) each London health trust in each year since 2010.

    Alistair Burt

    This information is not held centrally.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-03-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish an inquiry into the Omagh bombing of 1998 and the handling of the investigation into that bombing by the security forces.

    Lord Dunlop

    The Government’s position, as announced in September 2013, remains that following careful consideration and consultation there should be no public inquiry. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concluded that a further inquiry or review would not deliver results going beyond what had already been uncovered by previous investigations and processes.