Tag: Sue Hayman

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-09-05.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans his Department has to ensure that the LEADER and Countryside Stewardship schemes continue to be funded when the UK leaves the EU.

    Mr David Gauke

    The funds mentioned are covered under the Chancellor’s recent announcement on EU funding, available at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-philip-hammond-guarantees-eu-funding-beyond-date-uk-leaves-the-eu

  • Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to abolish the feudal system of land tenure in England and Wales.

    Dominic Raab

    The government has no plans to change the basis on which land is owned in England and Wales.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what discussions his Department has had with Compact Voice about the duration of the formal personal independent payment consultation.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The time period for the consultation was decided in line with the Government’s consultation principles guidance. This advises that consultations should typically run for between 2 and 12 weeks, but that “the timing and length of a consultation should be decided on a case-by-case basis; there is no set formula for establishing the right length”.

    As we were consulting on the specific and discrete issue of how aids and appliances are accounted for when determining eligibility to the daily living component, 6 weeks was felt to be an appropriate length.

    As the consultation ran over Christmas this period was extended by 8 days, which is why the consultation ran for 7 weeks and one day. The length of the consultation was determined by the Government, as is standard practice. There have been no discussions with Compact Voice on this issue.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-09-08.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the rollout of digital infrastructure in rural areas as part of the move to deliver public services through digital technology.

    Ben Gummer

    I meet Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues. My officials in the Government Digital Service work with the Department of Culture, Media & Sport on digital inclusion and engagement. Government is working in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors to ensure that everyone in the UK has the basic digital skills needed to benefit in the digital age. To date, more than 90 organisations, including EE, Vodafone, Age UK, the LGA, Tinder Foundation, Microsoft, Shelter and Google have signed up to the Government’s Digital Inclusion Charter to develop initiatives that reach as many people as possible. We are committed to ensuring every UK citizen who can be online will be by 2020.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2015-12-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will apply for EU Solidarity Funding for the damage caused by recent flooding.

    Rory Stewart

    We will consider all forms of support for those affected by the recent floods.

    However, the EU Solidarity Fund would not compensate for private losses. It would take several months to receive the majority of the funds and only provides for a fraction of the total costs of assessed damage. The Government is not ruling this out, but we need to act quickly and our immediate priority is to deal with the urgent needs of those affected.

    This is why the Government has opened the Bellwin scheme for Local Authorities affected by floods, with 100% of eligible costs to be met by the Government.

    On top of this, the Government is providing nearly £200 million of additional aid to support those affected by the floods in England.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to his Department’s consultation on aids and appliances and the daily living component of personal independence payments, Cm 9171, if he will publish the impact assessment prepared for the five options in that consultation.

    Justin Tomlinson

    As confirmed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his statement to the House on 21 March, the proposed changes to PIP will not be going ahead.

    We spend around £50bn every year on benefits alone to support people with disabilities or health conditions, with spending on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) having increased by more than £3 billion since 2010. The government is committed to talking to disabled people, their representatives, healthcare professionals and employers to ensure the welfare system works better with the health and social care systems and provides help and support to those who need it most.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-09-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps her Department is taking to support the Lake District National Park Partnership in its bid for status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

    Tracey Crouch

    Government continues to support the excellent work of the Lake District National Park Partnership and other stakeholders, which has led to the Lake District becoming the UK’s nomination for World Heritage Status in 2017.

    Officials will be present to support the partnership during the World Heritage Committee mission to the Lake District, due to take place in October 2016.

  • Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Government plans to ratify the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

    Karen Bradley

    The previous Government signed the Istanbul Convention in June 2012. This Government remains committed to its ratification.

    The UK already complies with the vast majority of the articles through its comprehensive work to protect women and girls. However, primary legislation will be required to comply with the extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions in Article 44 of the Convention before ratification.

    The Government is liaising with the devolved administrations about ratification, including any further legislative steps necessary. The Government takes its international commitments very seriously and will only commit to such ratification when we are absolutely satisfied that we comply with all articles.

  • Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to implement the coercive and controlling behaviour offence, as defined by the Serious Crime Act 2015; and what training the (a) police, (b) judiciary and (c) other statutory agencies will have on coercive control and the new offence.

    Karen Bradley

    We are aiming to introduce the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour as soon as practicable. We have been clear that before the offence can be introduced it is essential that frontline agencies receive proper training and guidance on how to use the new offence.

    We have been working with the College of Policing and Crown Prosecution Service to develop statutory guidance.

    New guidance on investigating domestic abuse was published by the College of Policing last month including coercive and controlling behaviour and new training for the police incorporating coercive control has been developed and piloted. In addition, every Police force in England and Wales has now published an action plan on domestic abuse and the College of Policing is reviewing risk assessment tools used by officers.

    Upon commencement of the offence, a circular will be issued, including to the Lord Chief Justice, to ensure criminal justice partners are fully aware.

  • Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Sue Hayman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2015-09-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the Sellafield site security costs were in each of the last five years; and what those costs are projected to be in each of the next five years.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Security at Sellafield is a high priority for the Government. However, the Government does not comment on security at nuclear sites. Expenditure on security is subject to the same processes and rules as other public expenditure.