UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Defence Attaché and Loan Service Centre was established; how many staff that Centre employs; and what that Centre’s budget is for 2016-17.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    Staff for the Defence Attache and Loan Service Centre (DALSC) were recruited from January to March 2016. The Centre opened for limited operations on 4 April 2016, supporting 75 defence section staff currently undertaking language training or preparation for deployment. In the first quarter of 2017 the DALSC is expected to be at full capability. The Centre will then also provide support to Loan Service personnel.

    The DALSC employs 14 staff and, when running fully in 2017, their annual operating costs will be approximately £1.2 million. The establishment of the DALSC represents early progress against a Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 deliverable.

  • Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Chapman on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether HMS Dauntless is being used as a harbour training and accommodation ship.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The introduction of Engineering Training Ships is an important component of the Royal Navy’s comprehensive programme to improve training and career development opportunities by increasing training capacity.

    Ships in the operating cycle immediately ahead of refit will be used to deliver training alongside home Bases and Ports. HMS DAUNTLESS entered this profile in February this year. A reduced Ship’s Company reside on board as normal, augmented by trainees who use the opportunity to gain experience through development activities in a realistic environment.

  • Oliver Colvile – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Oliver Colvile – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Oliver Colvile on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his Department is doing to narrow the 12 year difference in life expectancy between council wards in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency.

    Nicola Blackwood

    Addressing health inequalities is a Government priority. This was clearly set out in the Prime Minister’s inaugural speech in July. Key to this message was the importance of addressing the gap in life expectancy.

    Achieving measurable and sustained reductions in health inequalities by 2020 and reducing the gaps in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are priority objectives in the Department’s Shared Delivery Plan: 2015 – 2020. Action is largely led locally to ensure that the solutions put in place reflect the needs of individual communities.

    To address the differences in life expectancy across Plymouth, Plymouth Clinical Commissioning Group and health services have introduced the ‘Thrive’ initiative. This aims to tackle the four lifestyle choices (inactivity, diet, alcohol consumption and smoking) that lead to respiratory diseases, cancer, stroke and heart disease. The work, currently in its second year, is the start of the long term drive to improve health and reduce inequalities in Plymouth. Health organisations such as Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Livewell Southwest and general practitioner Practices have signed up in support of the Thrive initiative.

    In order to ensure that health services are supporting those communities with the highest need, the ‘Success Regime’ has been introduced across Devon, which aims to protect and promote services for patients in local health and care systems that are struggling with financial or quality problems. Additionally, the Sustainability and Transformation Plan for Wider Devon includes a requirement to ensure that sustainable general practice is in place for all populations with equitable access times for routine and urgent treatment.

  • Grant Shapps – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Grant Shapps – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grant Shapps on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will estimate the cost of a single ticket to any destination served by High Speed 2.

    Andrew Jones

    The business case for HS2 assumes the same fares structure as today. It is too early to set individual fares for HS2 services, which will begin operation in 2026.

  • Mark Hendrick – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Mark Hendrick – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2015-11-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what facilities are in place to enable staff based at the tax credit office in Preston to pay money out of their wages into the Guild Money Credit Union.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has a process in place that enables serving staff to authorise a deduction of their salary, which is then paid over to third parties such as the Civil Service Benevolent Fund or HMRC’s chosen partner for Payroll Giving. As part of this process, the recipient organisation must appear on an approved list. There are no credit unions on this list and, consequently, it is not possible to make a deduction in relation to credit unions.

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether LGBTI people who are at risk are included in the vulnerability criteria of the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme; and if so, what steps they are taking to identify vulnerable LGBTI people in refugee camps or places of displacement, and what resources and services will be provided to LGBTI refugees resettled to the UK in order to address their specific needs.

    Lord Bates

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR’s) vulnerability criteria for identifying refugees under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme include persons at risk due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and LGBTI refugees are identified through their normal screening procedures.

    Local authorities are provided with full case details of all referrals so they can make an assessment of the needs of refugees, before deciding whether to accept them for resettlement. Whilst the Government provides funding to ensure these needs can be met, it is up to individual local authorities to decide how this should be achieved.

  • Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-01-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the (a) average and (b) contractually-specified maximum length of time is that a claimant has to wait for their complaint to be resolved by Concentrix.

    Mr David Gauke

    Concentrix are obliged under their contract with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to respond to complaints which relate to the quality of their handling of compliance interventions, as distinct from complaints on the substance of these investigations which are dealt with by HMRC.

    Their contract requires them to respond 80% of these complaints within 15 working days; and to reply to 100% of complaints within 40 working days. So far during 2015/16, Concentrix have received eight complaints. They replied to six of these (75%) within 15 days and seven (87.5%) within 40 days.

  • Lord Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kinnock on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what applications for support have been submitted to the EU Globalisation Adjustment Fund since its inception; whether they intend to submit an application for support in order to support workers made redundant from the steel industry in the last year; and if not, why not.

    Lord Freud

    The European Globalisation Fund (EGF) provides a financial contribution for active labour market measures, aimed at reintegrating those made or at risk of being made redundant in the labour market.

    Member States are responsible in the first instance for tackling trade adjustment redundancies – the fund is therefore designed to add to national, regional and local assistance.

    The UK already offers a broad range of personalised support to workers made redundant through its Rapid Response Service and Jobcentre Plus, which could not be duplicated or substituted by EGF.

    The Rapid Response Service and the Jobcentre Plus Core Offer are effective reintegration tools which represent good value for money and are our primary and most helpful means of response to large redundancies.

    For this reason, the UK Government has never applied to the EGF.

    In addition to the aforementioned support, in the case of the steel industry, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has also announced packages of support worth up to £80 million for SSI in Redcar and up to £9 million for TATA Steel in Scunthorpe.

    Only if more support is necessary other suitable sources of support will be considered.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what her policy is on the exemption of academy school staff from the one per cent public sector pay rise limit.

    Edward Timpson

    The reformed national pay and terms and conditions arrangements allow all schools considerable flexibility over the pay of their teachers.

    Staff at academies are employees of academy trusts, companies limited by guarantee with charitable status. Whilst academy trusts are classified as public sector bodies, their staff are not employees of the Crown. Academies have more control over their budgets so that they can meet their school’s needs more effectively and have the flexibility to reward the best teachers and excellent performance. These are the reasons they are not included within the statutory national pay and terms and conditions arrangements, which includes the current one per cent cap on pay increases.

    Many academies have pay systems that mirror the provisions of the statutory national arrangements and many converter academy staff have ‘Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations’ rights that preserve their entitlement to the national pay and terms and conditions arrangements.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of its spending on reducing homelessness in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Since 2010 we have invested over £500 million to enable local authorities and the voluntary sector to support those vulnerable and at risk of homelessness. One person without a home is one too many and we are committed to do all we can to prevent homelessness. We have protected the homelessness prevention funding local authorities receive, totalling £315 million by 2019-20. This builds on our Spending Review commitment to increase central government funding to £139 million over the course of this Parliament. We will work with homelessness organisations to consider other options, including legislation, to ensure those at risk of homelessness get earlier and more effective support.

    We also announced at Budget £100 million to deliver low cost ‘move on’ accommodation to enable people leaving hostels and refuges to make a sustainable recovery from a homelessness crisis, providing at least 2,000 places for vulnerable people to enable independent living.