Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Government’s memorandum submitted to the Lords Secondary Legislation Committee on 28 January 2016, what the evidential basis is for the statement that there will be no cash losers from the reduction of the income rise disregards for tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    As announced in the combined Autumn Statement and Spending Review, the amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase within the year before their tax credit award is adjusted (the income rise disregard), will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The reduction to the income rise disregard will stop one family receiving a higher tax credit award over another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances, which makes the system fairer. The household income of families before it rises will inform how they might be effected by a reduction in the income rise disregard.

    The only people who will be affected are those who will see an income increase of more than £2,500 in-year.

    Due to the way that tax credits are calculated, the amount an award will be adjusted by – because of an increase in income – will depend upon a claimant’s individual circumstances, such as the household’s income before it rises. No one will be a cash loser because their income will have increased. As an example, for an individual with a wage of £12,000, an income increase of £2,501 would lead to an adjustment in their tax credit award of just 41 pence. An increase of less than £2,500 would see no change at all.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much subsidy was paid to the operators of the Northern rail franchise in each financial year between December 2004 and April 2016.

    Andrew Jones

    Subsidies paid from 2004 to 2008:

    2004/05 – 81.0 million (part year – December 2004 to March 2005)

    2005/06 – 278.2 million

    2006/07 – 168.5 million

    2007/08 – 119.3 million

    Figures from 2008 onwards are published on the Office of Rail and Road’s (‘ORR’) website at: http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6. 2015-16 financial information will be made available following publication of Audited Statutory Accounts.

    “

  • Matthew Offord – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Matthew Offord – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Offord on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what checks his Department undertakes to ensure that EU Missions are compliant with all European labour laws and that such missions have proper grievance procedures in place for complaints by staff seconded by the UK and other EU member states.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO) supports outward secondments that develop the skills and experience of our staff. Our staff are encouraged to take up opportunities where the work is in line with the FCO’s strategic priorities.

    The terms and conditions of employees working for international organisations are set by the organisation they work for during the secondment. The host organisation also takes responsibility for ensuring the duty of care to our secondees is properly discharged and that their working conditions are satisfactory. This would include having proper grievance procedures in place. The FCO takes this into account when agreeing to a secondment, and individual volunteers are expected to satisfy themselves that they are aware of any differences between the two organisations terms and conditions before agreeing any contract. Secondees remain our employees during their secondments and continue to enjoy the protection of their employment rights with the FCO.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had with the Royal College of Nursing on the effect of boredom on obesity.

    Jane Ellison

    My Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not had any such discussions.

  • Keir Starmer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Keir Starmer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keir Starmer on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 5 July 2016 to Question 41593, for what reason HS2 Ltd is supporting a two rather than three railhead option at Euston for the transportation of excavated and construction materials.

    Andrew Jones

    The decision to pursue a two railhead solution was based on a detailed consideration of the environmental, socio-economic and value for money benefits of that option as compared to the value for money disbenefits of the option that included a third railhead. HS2 will, however, continue to seek ways to mitigate the construction programme impacts and to respond to feedback, which will include exploring, during the detailed design phase, additional and/or alternative opportunities to move material by rail including, but not limited to, the third railhead option.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, if he will devolve control over immigration to the Scottish Government as part of his negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

    Mr David Jones

    Immigration is a reserved matter. However, we are working closely with the Scottish Government and we will get the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU. We will give the Scottish Government every opportunity to have their say as we develop the negotiating strategy.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what average time his Department took to respond to freedom of information requests in each year since 2005.

    Jane Ellison

    The Government publishes statistics on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 within central government, including on timeliness. These can be found at the following link:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.

    “

  • Madeleine Moon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Madeleine Moon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how his Department assesses the cost per trainee for force development and adventure training; whether costs for force development are assessed separately to those for adventure training; what the cost is for (a) force development and (b) adventure training; and if he will make a statement.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 16 December 2015 to Question 19591, what alternative provision is available for bullied children who subsequently develop complex needs; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure government funding attaches to a child requiring alternative provision but lacking an EHC plan because the damage from bullying has caused a collapse in self-esteem and wellbeing rather than a physical medical condition.

    Nick Gibb

    Any pupil who can no longer attend a mainstream school due to complex needs, including those related to mental health issues, must be provided with alternative education. It is for the local authority to decide the most suitable provision and they are encouraged to take into account the views of relevant professionals, such as medical practitioners, as well as parents and pupils. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 lays a duty on local authorities to arrange education for pupils of compulsory school age who would not otherwise receive it. Local authorities use a portion of their high needs budget to fund this provision. Schools are also free to use their budgets to commission alternative education for pupils who have complex needs they judge would be best managed with such an approach.

    The Department has issued guidance on alternative provision: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternative-provision. The Department has also issued guidance on the education of pupils with complex medical needs that cannot be managed in a mainstream school: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-for-children-with-health-needs-who-cannot-attend-school.

    “

  • Baroness Uddin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Baroness Uddin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Uddin on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to encourage countries hosting Syrian refugees in the region to allow non-governmental organisations to provide non-formal education opportunities.

    Baroness Verma

    The UK remains at the forefront of the response to the crisis in Syria and the region. We have doubled our commitment and have now pledged a total of more than £2.3 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. The UK is funding Non-Formal Education via UNICEF in Jordan and Lebanon which is implemented by national non-governmental organisations.

    We helped launch and mobilise international support for the No Lost Generation Initiative. The aim of Initiative is to improve quality formal and non-formal learning opportunities for children that are out of school. As part of this support, the UK has allocated £115 million to provide protection, psychosocial support and education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the region. As a result over 251,000 children have received formal and informal education inside Syria and in the region.

    At the Supporting Syria and the Region Conference in London on 4 February, leaders came together to pledge more than $11 billion, the largest amount raised in one day for a humanitarian crisis. On education, leaders committed that by the end of the 2016/17 school year, 1.7 million children – all refugee children and vulnerable children in host communities – will be in quality education with equal access for girls and boys. This includes enrolment in either a formal school or a non-formal, informal or other alternative education programme that meets national or international standards.