Tag: Steve McCabe

  • Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, on what grounds UK aid is given to countries on the EU Commission tax haven blacklist.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    DFID uses a range of criteria to inform how we allocate aid across countries. These criteria include, for example, current and projected poverty levels in the country, the country’s ability to self-finance its development (e.g. through domestic taxation), and the likely effectiveness of UK aid.

    A number of EU member states maintain lists of jurisdictions for tax purposes against criteria concerning tax transparency and/or the prevailing tax rate. The EU does not maintain a blacklist; however a list of 30 jurisdictions that featured on 10 or more member state lists was compiled and then superseded by a recent European Commission update.

    This update included UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories which had the UK’s signature of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters extended to them in 2014. The updated individual member state lists can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/good_governance_matters/lists_of_countries/.

    Of the 30 jurisdictions named in the original list, 14 received UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2013 (the most recent year for which consolidated figures are available). Of these 14, only three (Liberia, Montserrat and Vanuatu) received ODA from DFID for development and humanitarian assistance in that year. Details of funding amounts to these 14 jurisdictions can be found at the Statistics on International Development 2014 page of the gov.uk website.

  • Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans his Department has put in place to fund walking and cycling infrastructure once the Local Sustainable Transport Fund ends in March 2016.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Department has a statutory obligation to deliver the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS). The Department has commenced the early first stages of work to develop the first CWIS by summer 2016 following a formal consultation in spring 2016. Detailed content of this Strategy is not yet available.

    The Government recently reaffirmed its commitment to cycling and walking by investing over £300m during this Parliament. This includes delivering the Cycle City Ambition programme in full, and funding the Bikeability cycle training programme, which increases cycle proficiency amongst school children. It also includes a new ‘Access’ fund for sustainable travel building on the legacy of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. It is too early to say what the details of this new Access fund will be as discussions are ongoing, but information is expected to be available in the coming weeks.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make it her policy to include single parents who are in full-time employment in the extension of free childcare to 30 hours per week.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Single parents will be able to access the extended entitlement in the same way as two parent households. A single parent will need to earn a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at national minimum wage or living wage. In addition, their income should not exceed £100,000. This will include employed and self-employed parents.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment he has made of the effect of recent changes to funding of bus services on the provision of those services.

    Andrew Jones

    Decisions about the provision of bus services requiring subsidy remain a matter for individual English local authorities, in the light of their other spending priorities.

    The majority of public funding for local bus services is from the block grant that local authorities in England receive from the Department for Communities and Local Government. However, my Department also provides around £40m of Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) funding directly to English local authorities to help deliver bus services.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 22 February 2016 to Question 26546, when he expects to publish the consultation document on introducing fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence claims.

    Ben Gummer

    We are planning to go out to consultation shortly.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans she has to review the policy limiting the reuniting of refugee families to children under the age of 18 and partners of refugees who have been granted asylum in the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    Our refugee family reunion policy allows immediate family members of a person in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection status – that is a spouse or partner and children under the age of 18, who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin – to reunite with them in the UK. We have no plans to widen these criteria, which are fully compliant with our international obligations and enable thousands of people each year to be reunited with their families in the UK.

    However, where a family reunion application fails under the Immigration Rules, the Entry Clearance Officer must also consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting a visa outside the Rules. This caters for extended family members in exceptional circumstances.

    We are currently reviewing our process for dealing with family reunion applications in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As part of that review we are working closely with the British Red Cross. We have committed to improving our guidance to caseworkers and redesigning the application form to ensure that applicants better understand the process and what is required of them.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria she uses to assess a bid from a metro mayor to assume the additional role of police and crime commissioner.

    Mike Penning

    Any proposal submitted by a local area for an elected mayor to take on police and crime commissioner (PCC) functions will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    In keeping with the Government’s broader approach to the devolution of powers to local people, it is for local areas to make the case and demonstrate that the transfer of PCC functions would be in the best interests of local communities and the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in relevant areas.

    There is no presumption that an elected mayor would take on PCC functions. Local circumstances and the views of relevant PCCs are important factors in any consideration. Alongside this, another significant consideration is the issue of geographic boundaries and co-terminosity between the police area and the combined authority area.

    Against that background, it is for local areas to make the case for any proposals.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 15 March 2016 to Question 30648, what details of family members her Department records in respect of refugees who are granted asylum in the UK.

    Mike Penning

    Asylum claims may include one or more family members who are accepted as dependant on the principal claimant’s asylum claim. Information on family members is requested at the screening and substantive interviews and, where given, this includes name, date of birth, nationality, gender and method of entry into the country.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many individual injunction cases the Planning Enforcement Fund helped finance in (a) 2014-15 and (b) 2015-16.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Department received six applications for enforcement grants before the deadline for submitting applications and all were successful.

    Two grants were made in the financial year 2014-15 to Staffordshire County Council (£8,010) and Stratford-on-Avon District Council (£3,200).

    Four grants were made in the financial year 2015-16 to Bath and North East Somerset Council (£7,993.75), London Borough of Camden (£8,184.50), Chelmsford City Council (£2,755) and South Gloucestershire Council (£3,291.66).

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 23 March 2016 to Question 31103, what the average local authority expenditure for each looked after child was in each year from 2011 to 2015.

    Edward Timpson

    Local authority funding for the provision of children’s services, including fostering services, is provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government. However, local authorities are required to submit annual budget and outturn statements about their actual spending to the Secretary of State for Education.

    The total local authority expenditure on looked after children, based upon the section 251 outturn statements, is set out below for each financial year between 2011 – 2015.

    Total local authority expenditure per looked after child per week is also set out. This is given by total expenditure in each financial year divided by the total number of looked after children at the 31 March of each year. This is then divided by the number of weeks in a year to give a weekly figure.

    2011-12 (£000s)

    2012-13 (£000s)

    2013-14 (£000s)

    2014-15 (£000s)

    Looked After Children Spending

    £3,383,664

    £3,495,626

    £3,661,327

    £3,768,523

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15

    Spending per Looked after Child per week

    £880

    £985

    £1,020

    £1,040

    Source: Section 251 outturn statements and SSDA903

    Note: Unit costs rounded to the neared £5.