Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1007153

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Special Educational Needs: Finance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much money was reallocated from the Dedicated Schools Grant towards the High Needs Block in each local authority area in England in each of the last three years.
tabling member constituency	Oxford West and Abingdon
tabling member printed	Layla Moran
uin	191474
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>Prior to 2018-19, local authorities were free to determine the balance of funding between their schools, high needs and early years budgets, all funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). It is not possible to give figures for transfers from the schools block to high needs, as the precise amounts spent by local authorities will also be affected by transfers to and from DSG reserves, and any funding from other sources (for instance, local authorities’ general funds) spent on educational purposes.</p><p>In 2018-19, with the introduction of the national funding formulae for schools and high needs, we have limited this flexibility in order to ensure that the majority of schools funding that local authorities receive is going directly to schools.</p><p>Local authorities are able to move up to 0.5% of their funding from the schools block to the high needs block, with agreement of their schools forum. This is explained in the high needs operational guide, available at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-funding-arrangements-2019-to-2020" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-funding-arrangements-2019-to-2020</a>. Where a local authority wishes to move more funding, or the forum does not agree to the transfer, the local authority will be required to seek recourse to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Last year, after thorough consideration, 13 local authorities were granted the ability to move funding under these circumstances.</p><p>We will publish data shortly showing the amount of schools block funding the local authorities has allocated this year, compared to the amount they received, thereby providing an indication of funding directed to other areas, such as high needs.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Stratford-on-Avon answering member printed Nadhim Zahawi question first answered 19/11/2018 17:18:42 answering member 4113 label Biography information for Nadhim Zahawi
tabling member	4656 label Biography information for Layla Moran

1007141

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Mental Health Services: Children and Young People
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what proportion of publicly-funded CAMHS in-patient services are delivered by private providers; and what the names are of those providers.
tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Wavertree
tabling member printed	Luciana Berger
uin	191397
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The following table shows total child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) expenditure for the last five years split by type of provider. The information relates to Tier 4 specialised mental health beds for children and young people, aged 13-18, commissioned by NHS England. CAMHS Tier 4 includes general inpatient care and specialised eating disorders services. These figures will include very small elements of non-in-patient services as we are unable to detail spend on inpatients only.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p>CAMHS Expenditure</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at Independent Sector (IS) Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at National Health Service Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at IS Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at NHS Providers on CAMHS</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>%</p></td><td><p>%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013/14</p></td><td><p>252.0</p></td><td><p>122.0</p></td><td><p>130.0</p></td><td><p>48%</p></td><td><p>52%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014/15</p></td><td><p>279.6</p></td><td><p>120.3</p></td><td><p>159.3</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>57%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015/16</p></td><td><p>319.1</p></td><td><p>136.6</p></td><td><p>182.5</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>57%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016/17</p></td><td><p>341.5</p></td><td><p>156.4</p></td><td><p>185.1</p></td><td><p>46%</p></td><td><p>54%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>355.2</p></td><td><p>156.5</p></td><td><p>198.7</p></td><td><p>44%</p></td><td><p>56%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Spend in Independent Sector providers in 2017/18 totalled £156.5 million.</p> answering member constituency Thurrock answering member printed Jackie Doyle-Price grouped question UIN 191398 question first answered 19/11/2018 17:23:46 answering member 4065 label Biography information for Dame Jackie Doyle-Price
tabling member	4036 label Biography information for Baroness Berger

1007142

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Mental Health Services: Children and Young People
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how much his Department has spent on CAMHS in-patient services in each of the last five years; and what proportion of that spend is received by private providers.
tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Wavertree
tabling member printed	Luciana Berger
uin	191398
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The following table shows total child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) expenditure for the last five years split by type of provider. The information relates to Tier 4 specialised mental health beds for children and young people, aged 13-18, commissioned by NHS England. CAMHS Tier 4 includes general inpatient care and specialised eating disorders services. These figures will include very small elements of non-in-patient services as we are unable to detail spend on inpatients only.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p>CAMHS Expenditure</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at Independent Sector (IS) Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at National Health Service Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at IS Providers on CAMHS</p></td><td><p>Expenditure at NHS Providers on CAMHS</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>£ million</p></td><td><p>%</p></td><td><p>%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013/14</p></td><td><p>252.0</p></td><td><p>122.0</p></td><td><p>130.0</p></td><td><p>48%</p></td><td><p>52%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014/15</p></td><td><p>279.6</p></td><td><p>120.3</p></td><td><p>159.3</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>57%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015/16</p></td><td><p>319.1</p></td><td><p>136.6</p></td><td><p>182.5</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>57%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016/17</p></td><td><p>341.5</p></td><td><p>156.4</p></td><td><p>185.1</p></td><td><p>46%</p></td><td><p>54%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>355.2</p></td><td><p>156.5</p></td><td><p>198.7</p></td><td><p>44%</p></td><td><p>56%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Spend in Independent Sector providers in 2017/18 totalled £156.5 million.</p> answering member constituency Thurrock answering member printed Jackie Doyle-Price grouped question UIN 191397 question first answered 19/11/2018 17:23:46 answering member 4065 label Biography information for Dame Jackie Doyle-Price
tabling member	4036 label Biography information for Baroness Berger

1007144

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Ministry of Defence: Babcock International
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the total value of contracts between his Department and Babcock.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	191328
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The total value of the contacts the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has with Babcock is £22.37 billion.</p><p>This analysis includes contracts in which Babcock are joint ventures or have a share with other suppliers. The figure provided is the attributable share of that contract value to Babcock.</p><p>Information about the contracts that we place with industry is available on GOV.uk as part of our MOD Trade, Industry and Contracts statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/defence-trade-and-industry-index</p><p>In addition, MOD contracts worth over £10,000 are published on the Government's Contracts Finder website, which is available on GOV.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/contracts-finder</p> answering member constituency Pudsey answering member printed Stuart Andrew question first answered 19/11/2018 17:25:55 answering member 4032 label Biography information for Stuart Andrew
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Lord Beamish

1007138

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Ministry of Defence: Babcock International
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has temporarily transferred any services performed by Babcock Defence Support Group back to his Department.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	191326
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>None of the services presently covered by the Babcock Defence Support Group Service Provision and Transformation Contract have been transferred back to the Department.</p> answering member constituency Pudsey answering member printed Stuart Andrew question first answered 19/11/2018 17:27:05 answering member 4032 label Biography information for Stuart Andrew
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Lord Beamish

1007181

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Army: Recruitment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what information his Department holds on the number of new recruits to the Army from each (a) parliamentary constituency, (b) region of the UK and (c) constituent part of the UK in the most recent period for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Batley and Spen
tabling member printed	Tracy Brabin
uin	191483
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The information requested will take time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 19/11/2018 17:30:18 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
tabling member	4588 label Biography information for Tracy Brabin

1007155

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Mental Health Services: Children and Young People
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what guidance his Department has provided to Child and adolescent mental health services on acceptable waiting times for clinical assessments from the date of referral.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough
tabling member printed	Gill Furniss
uin	191475
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>Consultant-led non-urgent mental health treatments are covered by the general National Health Service 18 week waiting time standard.</p><p> </p><p>Additionally, in 2016 NHS England published the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health which includes the following waiting times targets for mental health services, to be achieved by 2020/21:</p><p>- For accessing ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ services 75% of referrals should be seen within six weeks and 95% should be seen within 18 weeks;</p><p>- For eating disorder services 95% of referrals should be seen within four weeks for routine cases and 95% of urgent referrals should be seen within one week; and</p><p>- For the Early Intervention in Psychosis programme 50% of people experiencing a first episode of psychosis should start a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended package of care within two weeks of referral, rising to 60%.</p><p> </p><p>We are on track to meet these targets, which are tracked on the Five Year Forward View dashboard, available at the following link:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/mental-health-five-year-forward-view-dashboard/" target="_blank">https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/mental-health-five-year-forward-view-dashboard/</a></p> answering member constituency Thurrock answering member printed Jackie Doyle-Price question first answered 19/11/2018 17:38:36 answering member 4065 label Biography information for Dame Jackie Doyle-Price
tabling member	4571 label Biography information for Gill Furniss

1007143

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Immigration: EU Nationals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government's suitability criterion for settled status that the applicant must not be subject to a removal decision under the EEA Regulations on the grounds of their non-exercise or misuse of rights under Directive 2004/38/EC, what steps he is taking to ensure that workers with (a) zero-hours and (b) part-time contracts are not refused settled status as a result of their employment status.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield Central
tabling member printed	Paul Blomfield
uin	191403
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union published on 14 November 2018 protects the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020 and their family members. Article 20 sets out the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to restrict the right of entry or residence to such an EU citizen or their family member.</p><p> </p><p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not protect those who are not exercising or are misusing free movement rights, and it means that, while free movement rules continue to operate to the end of the planned implementation period, there will remain scope, consistent with the relevant case law, for a person to be removed from the UK on those grounds. It is logical that this is reflected in the Immigration Rules and published caseworker guidance for the EU Settlement Scheme, as it is in the provisions of and published caseworker guidance for the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 which provide for the operation in the UK of the Free Movement Directive (2004/83/EC). The guidance on the Regulations sets out how misuse of free movement rights is assessed and was reviewed following the Gureckis, Cielecki and Perlinski judgments in 2017.</p><p> </p><p>However, the Statement of Intent on the EU Settlement Scheme published on 21 June 2018 made clear that the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work. This means that an applicant will not be refused status under the scheme because for example they are not economically active, their employment is not full-time or they do not hold comprehensive sickness insurance.</p><p> </p><p>An applicant refused status under the EU Settlement Scheme on eligibility or suitability grounds will be covered by the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 18(3) of the draft Withdrawal Agreement. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the primary legislation required to establish a right of appeal for the scheme, we intend that, consistent with Articles 18(3) and 21 of the draft Withdrawal Agreement, those applying under the scheme from 30 March 2019 will be given a statutory right of appeal if their application is refused.</p> answering member constituency Romsey and Southampton North answering member printed Caroline Nokes grouped question UIN 191400 191401 191402 191404 191405 question first answered 19/11/2018 18:00:13 answering member 4048 label Biography information for Caroline Nokes
tabling member	4058 label Biography information for Paul Blomfield

1007147

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Immigration: EU Nationals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government's suitability criterion for settled status that the applicant must not be subject to a removal decision under the EEA Regulations on the grounds of their non-exercise or misuse of rights under Directive 2004/38/EC, whether the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 17(3) of the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community will apply to applicants who are refused settled status on suitability grounds.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield Central
tabling member printed	Paul Blomfield
uin	191404
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union published on 14 November 2018 protects the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020 and their family members. Article 20 sets out the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to restrict the right of entry or residence to such an EU citizen or their family member.</p><p> </p><p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not protect those who are not exercising or are misusing free movement rights, and it means that, while free movement rules continue to operate to the end of the planned implementation period, there will remain scope, consistent with the relevant case law, for a person to be removed from the UK on those grounds. It is logical that this is reflected in the Immigration Rules and published caseworker guidance for the EU Settlement Scheme, as it is in the provisions of and published caseworker guidance for the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 which provide for the operation in the UK of the Free Movement Directive (2004/83/EC). The guidance on the Regulations sets out how misuse of free movement rights is assessed and was reviewed following the Gureckis, Cielecki and Perlinski judgments in 2017.</p><p> </p><p>However, the Statement of Intent on the EU Settlement Scheme published on 21 June 2018 made clear that the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work. This means that an applicant will not be refused status under the scheme because for example they are not economically active, their employment is not full-time or they do not hold comprehensive sickness insurance.</p><p> </p><p>An applicant refused status under the EU Settlement Scheme on eligibility or suitability grounds will be covered by the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 18(3) of the draft Withdrawal Agreement. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the primary legislation required to establish a right of appeal for the scheme, we intend that, consistent with Articles 18(3) and 21 of the draft Withdrawal Agreement, those applying under the scheme from 30 March 2019 will be given a statutory right of appeal if their application is refused.</p> answering member constituency Romsey and Southampton North answering member printed Caroline Nokes grouped question UIN 191400 191401 191402 191403 191405 question first answered 19/11/2018 18:00:13 answering member 4048 label Biography information for Caroline Nokes
tabling member	4058 label Biography information for Paul Blomfield

1007148

registered interest
date	14/11/2018
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Immigration: EU Nationals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government's suitability criterion for settled status that the applicant must not be subject to a removal decision under the EEA Regulations on the grounds of their non-exercise or misuse of rights under Directive 2004/38/EC, whether his Department has reviewed its definition of misuse of rights following the case of The Queen on the application of Gunars Gureckis v Secretary of State for the Home Department; The Queen on the application of Mariusz Cielecki v Secretary of State for the Home Department; The Queen on the application of Mariusz Perlinski v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin).
tabling member constituency	Sheffield Central
tabling member printed	Paul Blomfield
uin	191405
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union published on 14 November 2018 protects the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020 and their family members. Article 20 sets out the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to restrict the right of entry or residence to such an EU citizen or their family member.</p><p> </p><p>The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not protect those who are not exercising or are misusing free movement rights, and it means that, while free movement rules continue to operate to the end of the planned implementation period, there will remain scope, consistent with the relevant case law, for a person to be removed from the UK on those grounds. It is logical that this is reflected in the Immigration Rules and published caseworker guidance for the EU Settlement Scheme, as it is in the provisions of and published caseworker guidance for the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 which provide for the operation in the UK of the Free Movement Directive (2004/83/EC). The guidance on the Regulations sets out how misuse of free movement rights is assessed and was reviewed following the Gureckis, Cielecki and Perlinski judgments in 2017.</p><p> </p><p>However, the Statement of Intent on the EU Settlement Scheme published on 21 June 2018 made clear that the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work. This means that an applicant will not be refused status under the scheme because for example they are not economically active, their employment is not full-time or they do not hold comprehensive sickness insurance.</p><p> </p><p>An applicant refused status under the EU Settlement Scheme on eligibility or suitability grounds will be covered by the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 18(3) of the draft Withdrawal Agreement. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the primary legislation required to establish a right of appeal for the scheme, we intend that, consistent with Articles 18(3) and 21 of the draft Withdrawal Agreement, those applying under the scheme from 30 March 2019 will be given a statutory right of appeal if their application is refused.</p> answering member constituency Romsey and Southampton North answering member printed Caroline Nokes grouped question UIN 191400 191401 191402 191403 191404 question first answered 19/11/2018 18:00:13 answering member 4048 label Biography information for Caroline Nokes
tabling member	4058 label Biography information for Paul Blomfield