Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • 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 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of changes to tuition fees on the breadth of course provision offered by universities.

    Joseph Johnson

    The breadth of a higher education institution’s course offering is a decision for the institution itself, rather than Government, though it will inevitably be constrained by the need to cover the cost of that provision. The cap on student tuition fees has been frozen since 2012, which has meant that the maximum fee providers can charge has fallen in real terms, from £9,000 to £8,500.

    The Teaching Excellence Framework will mean that those providers who can demonstrate a suitably high standard of teaching quality will be able to maintain their fees in line with inflation.

    This is expected to be worth over £1 billion per year to the sector, ensuring the sector can continue to provide a world leading and diverse higher education system that promotes social mobility and the country’s economic success.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many licences the Government has secured for off-patent drugs in each of the last five years.

    George Freeman

    The Government does not normally apply for medicines licenses, which is rightly an obligation of the company who has developed the drug. The Secretary of State is the United Kingdom licensing authority for medicines and cannot become a routine applicant to himself nor can he become a routine participant in pharmaceutical markets which holders of licenses are obliged to do. The Government has not secured any licenses for off-patent drugs in the past five years.

  • Ian C. Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Ian C. Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian C. Lucas on 2015-11-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what criteria his Department used to select sites for HM Revenue and Customs regional offices.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced the planned locations of its future Regional Centres based on a number of key principles that will enable it to deliver more for less. In addition to cost, HMRC has taken account of the quality of local transport links, the local labour market and future workforce supply, and the need to retain the staff and skills it requires to continue its transformation. These changes will reduce HMRC’s estates costs by around £100 million a year by 2025.

    HMRC estimates that Liverpool will be home to between 2,800 and 3,100 full time equivalent employees. Consolidation into the Regional Centre is expected to begin in 2019-20. HMRC plans to open the Regional Centre in Cardiff in 2019-20. It is likely that the office at Plas Gororau in Wrexham will close in 2020-21. HMRC will be holding one-to-one discussions with each of its people to discuss the next steps.

  • Callum McCaig – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Callum McCaig – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Callum McCaig on 2016-01-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what discussions her Department has had with the operators of the Brae Alpha platform following the gas leak on 26 December 2015 that resulted in the shutdown of that platform.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The incident on 26 December 2015 was a safety-related incident at an offshore oil and gas installation, the regulation of which falls within the Health and Safety Executive’s statutory remit under the Offshore Safety Directive.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Brendan O’Hara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of whether there have been any unintentional violations of international humanitarian law carried out by Saudi coalition forces in Yemen.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We are aware of reports of alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by actors to the conflict and take these very seriously. It is important that all sides conduct thorough and conclusive investigations into all incidents where it is alleged that IHL has been breached. As the Saudis themselves announced on Sunday, they have mechanisms in place to investigate alleged incidents and to learn lessons if things go wrong. The Ministry of Defence also monitors incidents of alleged IHL violations using available information, which in turn informs our overall assessment of IHL compliance in Yemen. At this stage, looking at all the information available to us, we have not assessed that there has been a breach of IHL by the coalition, but continue to monitor the situation closely, seeking further information where appropriate.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department plans to take to ensure that employees who initially opted out of the automatic enrolment into pension provision are informed of the importance of revising of their individual pension status.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Automatic enrolment has been a great success to date. Since the roll out of automatic enrolment, nearly 6 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. Only 10% of individuals that have been automatically enrolled so far have chosen to opt out. This is one of the key indicators of the policy’s success in increasing participation in pension saving.

    Individuals who have opted out of automatic enrolment and have subsequently changed their mind can discuss with their employer how to opt back in. Furthermore, employers are required by law to automatically re-enrol eligible workers every three years. This prompts individuals to periodically reconsider their saving arrangements. Employers also have duties to provide certain information to their workers within prescribed time limits.

    In addition, the national communications campaign, Don’t Ignore the Workplace Pension, raises awareness of pension saving among both employees and employers, and promotes the idea that saving in a workplace pension is normal. The campaign directs individuals to the campaign website, The Pension Regulator’s website, and the relevant gov.uk website.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-21.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to Principle G of the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles 2016, what steps he took to (a) consider how the summer holiday period would affect consultation with stakeholders and (b) mitigate such effects when deciding on the consultation period on proposals relating to exit payments in the public sector.

    Greg Hands

    The consultation on a public sector exit payment cap ran from 31 July to 27 August 2015. These dates ensured that the consultation concluded in advance of the Enterprise Bill’s introduction on 16 September 2015, to inform the content of the ‘public sector employment: restrictions on exit payments’ clause.

    In addition, this policy was a clear manifesto commitment made in April 2015 and the intention to legislate was announced in May. The Government also considered responses received after the official consultation deadline.

    The consultation received over 4000 responses, which is a good indication that there was sufficient time to comment and demonstrates that stakeholders were able to effectively engage with the proposals. The measure has also undergone full Parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Enterprise Bill.

  • Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Viscount Waverley on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their intention that, in the event of the UK leaving the EU, citizens of EU member states who had previously settled in the UK would be entitled automatically to remain; and if not, what contingency plans they are making to defend any legal challenges or claims for compensation under the European Convention on Human Rights that might arise from individuals who are subject to removal.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    As set out in the Government’s White Paper: ‘The process for withdrawing from the European Union’, published on 29 February, the withdrawal process is unprecedented. No country has ever used Article 50 – it is untested. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how it would work.

    UK citizens get the right to live and work in the other 27 member states from our membership of the EU. If the UK voted to leave the EU, the Government would do all it could to secure a positive outcome for the country, but there would be no requirement under EU law for these rights to be maintained.

  • Jeff Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jeff Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 26 May 2016 to Question 37876, what (a) number and (b) proportion of total penalty charge notices issued for invalid medical exemption certificates between January 2015 and December 2015 were subsequently retracted when the patient proved their right to exemption.

    Alistair Burt

    Between January and December 2015, a total of 34,142 penalty charge notices were issued to patients declaring they held a valid medical exemption certificate, which the National Health Service Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) was unable to verify. This equated to 7.92% of all penalty charge notices issued.

    During the same period, a total of 9,170 of these were subsequently retracted when the patient proved their right to exemption. This equated to 26.86% of all penalty charge notices issued for medical exemption certificates.

    Often the reason the penalty charge notice is retracted is because the patient has not informed the NHSBSA of a change of address or surname. This means the record of the medical exemption does not match the patient information on the prescription form. If a patient provides details of a valid medical exemption certificate, the penalty charge notice is retracted and the medical exemption record is updated to ensure further notices are not issued in error.

    Following the introduction of prescription charge exemption checking, it became apparent some people receiving penalty charge notices had a qualifying medical condition, but had not applied for a medical exemption certificate. In response, a new process was introduced in early spring 2015. This means that if someone submits a valid application for a medical or maternity exemption certificate within 60 days from date of the penalty charge notice, the outstanding penalty charge is cancelled but the prescription charge is still recovered.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions the Government has had with EU member state representatives on Horizon 2020 grant applications continuing to be evaluated on merit alone during the period for which the UK remains a member of the EU.

    Joseph Johnson

    The application process for Horizon 2020 is administered by the European Commission. UK participants can continue to bid for competitive Horizon 2020 EU research funding while we remain a member of the EU. We will work with the Commission to ensure payment when funds are awarded. The Treasury will underwrite the payment of such awards, even when specific projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU. This applies to all UK participants with direct agreements with the Commission who meet the terms of the grant.

    The Commission has made it clear that proposals from, or including, UK applicants must be treated in the same way as applications from other Member States while the UK remains a member of the EU.