Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times action has been taken against a service provider for non-compliance with a warrant served under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 since 2001.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government works closely with communication service providers to ensure they can give effect to warrants which help our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorists and criminals.

    It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on relationships with companies regarding interception warrants or whether specific companies had failed to give effect to an interception warrant.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what funding his Department allocated to the Winter Weather Repair Fund in (a) 2013-14 and (b) 2014-15; and what funding it has allocated to that fund in (i) 2015-16 and (ii) 2016-17.

    Andrew Jones

    The Department for Transport is providing over £6.1 billion funding to local highway authorities in England between 2015 and 2021 for local highways maintenance. This includes repairing roads that might be damaged due to severe winter weather. This funding includes £50 million per annum from 2016 to 2021 for a dedicated Pothole Action Fund as announced in the recent Spending Review.

    This is additional to the funding of over £4.7 billion the Government provided to local highway authorities between 2010 and 2015 for highways maintenance, including £168 million to tackle potholes across the country, as well as £183.5 million we provided in 2014 to help repair roads damaged by the winter floods of 2013/14. Between 2010 to 2015 the maintenance funding was 27% or £1billion higher than in the previous five years.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 19 January 2016 to Question 22689, when his Department plans to report to Parliament its detailed plans for the sale of the Green Investment Bank.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government has introduced provisions to the Enterprise Bill which require a report to be laid before Parliament once a decision to undertake a sale has been made. The report must set out the type of sale, the expected timescale, and the Government’s objectives for the sale.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if his Department will review planning permissions granted to developments that are yet to be started on floodplains that have been affected by recent flooding.

    Brandon Lewis

    It is primarily the responsibility of local planning authorities to determine applications for planning permission. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that local planning authorities should avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including floodplains. If there are better sites in terms of flood risk, or a proposed development cannot be made safe, it should not be permitted. Any new buildings that are permitted in flood risk areas should be appropriately flood resistant and resilient.

    Local planning authorities and developers are best-placed to understand the details of the development proposed and the local circumstances and risks to determine if a review is needed. It is in the interest of both the local planning authority and the developer to review a planning permission that has yet to be implemented in an area affected by the recent flooding. This can lead to an entirely new planning application being submitted by the developer to deal with the flooding issues now known. If adjustments can be made to the development, an application to make a non-material amendment under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may follow. This would allow the local planning authority to impose new conditions and remove or vary conditions attached to an existing planning permission, and may include a requirement to submit an updated flood risk assessment.

    If needed, local planning authorities also have powers under section 97 of the 1990 Act to make an order revoking or modifying a planning permission, prior to completion of the development.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-03-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what transitional arrangements her Department has made for learners currently on the Youth Contract which is set to come to an end in March 2016.

    Nick Boles

    Recruitment of new participants to the Youth Contract programme for 16 and 17 year olds closed on 31 March 2015, with the programme ending on 31 March 2016.

    In exceptional circumstances, where young people have not achieved this outcome before the programme closes, Youth Contract providers will direct them to other re-engagement provision or to their home local authority for appropriate support.

    Overall responsibility for supporting and encouraging young people, including the most vulnerable, rests with local authorities.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their current initiatives on the use of tax havens and issues about the use of off-shore companies, what assessment they have made of the use by Thames Water of a Cayman Islands company to raise over £5 billion of debt, and of Thames Water being owned and controlled from Luxembourg.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not disclose details of its work on the affairs of particular taxpayers.

  • 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 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether he plans to make changes to the procedure of the market rent only option once triggered, as planned in Part 6 of the withdrawn Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016.

    Anna Soubry

    No. The Government does not plan to make any material changes to the procedure of the ‘Market Rent Only’ option, once triggered, in the revised regulations. Some technical drafting improvements have been made to Part 6.

  • Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patrick Grady on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will issue a response to Early Day Motion 195, on Chronic pain, tabled on 13 June 2016.

    David Mowat

    Chronic pain is a long term condition where patients have persistent pain or repeated bouts of intermittent pain and it is a condition in its own right or as a component of other long term conditions. The routine assessment and management of pain is a required competency of all healthcare professionals. Many patients with chronic pain can be successfully supported and managed through routine primary and secondary care pain management services. Approaches to treatment are not all pharmacological and for some patients, education in self-management approaches for their condition may be also be appropriate.

    It is important that patients with the most serious pain management issues are able to access specialist care. A patient whose pain is particularly difficult to manage may be referred to a specialised pain management service. Under the care of an expert multidisciplinary team, patients may be offered specialised pain management programmes and more complex drug treatments. Such services are commissioned nationally by NHS England as part of its remit to deliver specialised services.

    To support clinicians in the management of pain, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published several clinical guidelines on the treatment and management of different types of pain, such as migraine and back pain, as well as technical guidance on specific treatments, such as the use of opiates in palliative care and deep brain stimulation for chronic pain.

  • William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Wragg on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to increase the number of cadet units in state schools.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Government has committed £50 million from LIBOR fines to increase the number of cadet units in UK state schools through the Cadet Expansion Programme. The joint Ministry of Defence/Department for Education programme is targeting schools in less affluent areas and we have had a substantial number of applications to establish new units. This demonstrates the interest that schools around the country have in the programme.

    The expansion programme is well on track to achieve its target of 500 cadet units parading in schools across the UK by 2020. As at June 2016, 350 units were parading and on 4 October 2016 the Secretary of State announced the next wave of 25 new units in state schools which have been approved.

    The list of 25 new schools which have been approved is as follows:

    Arnold Hill Academy – Nottinghamshire

    Askham Bryan College – North Yorkshire

    Bedlingtonshire Community High School – Northumberland

    Bishop Challoner Girls School – London

    Broadgreen International School – Liverpool

    Cardinal Griffin Catholic College – Staffordshire

    Carr Hill High School and Sixth Form Centre – Lancashire

    Central Foundation Boys’ School – London

    Chichester Free School – Chichester

    Ernest Bevin College – London

    Gravesend Grammar School – Kent

    Hugh Baird College – Merseyside

    Khalsa Secondary Academy – Buckinghamshire

    Kings Leadership Academy Liverpool – Liverpool

    Medway UTC – Kent

    Newton Rigg College – Cumbria

    Nova Hreod Academy – Swindon

    Quintin Kynaston Academy – London

    Rockwood Academy – Birmingham

    South Shields Community School – Tyne and Wear

    South Wiltshire UTC – Salisbury

    St Thomas More Catholic School – Tyne and Wear

    The JCB Academy – Staffordshire

    Tudor Grange Samworth Academy – Leicestershire

    West Midlands Construction UTC – Wolverhampton

  • Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many decisions on further submissions related to asylum claims that are outstanding have been waiting for longer than (a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years for a decision.

    James Brokenshire

    There is not a formal service standard for deciding further submissions from failed asylum seekers. The Home Office is balancing resource between those failed asylum seekers with no leave to remain who have made further submissions on the one hand and, on the other, those who were granted a limited period of leave following the refusal of their application who have outstanding applications for Further Leave.

    With regard to further submissions lodged by failed asylum seekers, there is dedicated resource in place to decide cases in the existing stock of further submissions and to also decide new submissions quickly, wherever possible within 5 days of their being lodged. With regard to cases in the stock of further submissions, the Home Office is prioritising cases where applicants are in receipt of asylum support and cases where the applicant may be removed from the United Kingdom in the eventuality their submission is refused. The Home Office will also give priority to further submissions case that have been outstanding for the longest period of time.

    The figures in the below table relate to failed asylum seekers who had outstanding further submissions as of 30 June 2015:

    Timescale (Years) Total

    1 – 2 2383

    2 – 3 1426

    3 or more 1267

    Total 5076