Asked by: Kate Hollern (Labour - Blackburn)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the reasons are for the disparity between the application cost and the administration cost of applications for child citizenship.
Answered by Caroline Nokes
The Home Office sets fees at a level that helps provide resources necessary to operate the Border, Immigration and Citizenship (BIC) system.
The Immigration Act 2014 is the primary legislation which gives them statutory powers to set fees. The relevant sections of the Act relating to fees are 68 to 70 which can be found on pages 58 to 61 of the following link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/22/pdfs/ukpga_20140022_en.pdf
Section 68(9) states:
(9) In setting the amount of any fee, or rate or other factor, in fees regulations, the Secretary of State may have regard only to:-
(a) the costs of exercising the function;
(b) benefits that the Secretary of State thinks are likely to accrue to any person in connection with the exercise of the function;
(c) the costs of exercising any other function in connection with immigration or nationality;
(d) the promotion of economic growth;
(e) fees charged by or on behalf of governments of other countries in respect of comparable functions; and
(f) any international agreement
We set fees to reflect the wider benefits an individual will receive from a successful application and do not limit fees to the cost of processing an application also. This was a fundamental principle underpinning the fees measures in the Immigration Act 2014, as debated and approved by Parliament.
Working within strict financial limits agreed with HM Treasury and Parliament, application fees are set by taking into account general policy objectives to ensure that fees are fair to customers, and that the Home Office can continue to offer a good level of service.
To ensure that the system is fair and equitable, the Home office believe it is reasonable that those who use and benefit directly from the BIC system make an appropriate contribution towards meeting the associated costs.
Application fees have increased in recent years to help support the Home
Office ambition to reduce the overall level of funding that comes from general taxation, by reducing costs and increasing the proportion which is funded by income generated from fees, therefore reducing the burden on the UK taxpayer.
The principle of charging at above cost for immigration and nationality fees was first approved by Parliament in 2004.
The additional income from above cost fees is used to help fund and maintain effective wider immigration system functions, and to ensure the Home Office can set some fees at below cost, where this supports the UK economy (Short-term visit visas), or is otherwise required by international agreement (EEA fees). And it also enables the Department to waive fees in certain individual circumstances, for example where people are destitute and need to access their Human Rights, for example their right to a family life.
Asked by: Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru - Ceredigion)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effect on funding for local charities of fundraising limits on society lotteries set out in the Gambling Act 2015.
Answered by Tracey Crouch
The Department does not hold data on funding for individual charities from society lotteries, however since the Gambling Act 2005 came into effect, the society lottery sector has seen year on year growth in proceeds, with a record £256 million raised for good causes in 2016-17 (figures for 2017-18 will be available later this year).
As the minister responsible for civil society, I greatly appreciate the impact society lotteries have as a fundraising tool for charities, and have discussed the impact of the current limits with the Lotteries Council and some individual lotteries.
We will continue to take advice from the Gambling Commission as we consider policy options. We hope to conclude considerations and provide an update in due course.
Asked by: Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru - Ceredigion)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effect on funding for local charities of fundraising limits on society lotteries set out in the Gambling Act 2015.
Answered by Tracey Crouch
The Department does not hold data on funding for individual charities from society lotteries, however since the Gambling Act 2005 came into effect, the society lottery sector has seen year on year growth in proceeds, with a record £256 million raised for good causes in 2016-17 (figures for 2017-18 will be available later this year).
As the minister responsible for civil society, I greatly appreciate the impact society lotteries have as a fundraising tool for charities, and have discussed the impact of the current limits with the Lotteries Council and some individual lotteries.
We will continue to take advice from the Gambling Commission as we consider policy options. We hope to conclude considerations and provide an update in due course.
Asked by: Priti Patel (Conservative - Witham)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what funds his Department has provided for the North Essex Garden Communities scheme; and what limits his Department has placed on the expenditure of those funds.
Answered by Dominic Raab
Across England we are already supporting twenty-four locally-led garden cities, towns and villages to be exemplars of quality, design and best practice. All told, they have the potential to deliver up to 220,000 homes across England. This includes the North Essex Garden Communities.
To date, we have provided capacity funding totalling £2.023 million to North Essex Garden Communities via our Garden Towns and Villages programme. This will enable dedicated staff to be employed and sustainable housing growth and infrastructure to be planned for, raising the bar on quality and design and leaving a legacy for future generations to be proud of.
It is for the local authorities to ensure that funding received is spent in line with any grant conditions. Homes England continue to provide delivery expertise to local areas, ensuring that capacity funding is best able to unlock delivery of homes.
Asked by: Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that further education colleges which have lost their allocation of non-levied apprenticeship funding can still deliver apprenticeships to local people and employers.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
189 colleges of further education (FE) held contracts with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to deliver apprenticeships prior to this procurement. The ESFA received bids from 182 of these FE colleges in the procurement, of which 10 have not been offered awards. Six of these were because the bids did not meet the minimum scoring threshold, and the remaining four were due to the awards falling below the £200,000 minimum contract value, set to ensure viable contracts for providers, employers and the ESFA. The 10 colleges are dispersed around England as shown in the table below.
East Midlands | 0 |
East of England | 1 |
Greater London | 3 |
North East | 0 |
North West | 2 |
South East | 1 |
South West | 1 |
West Midlands | 2 |
Yorkshire & Humber | 0 |
All FE colleges with apprentices already in training will continue to receive funding until they have completed their learning. In addition, subject to limits on the number of starts, we have offered all existing providers that were unsuccessful in the procurement a three-month extension of their current contracts to the end of March 2018, allowing them to take on new starts. All providers who are on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers are still able to deliver to levy paying employers.
Potential providers were required to indicate the sectors and regions in which they would be delivering apprenticeships in their tenders. We are confident that non-levy paying employers can access high quality apprenticeship training to support their growth and success, regardless of where in the country they operate in.
We will continue to keep this under review and take action where necessary.
Asked by: Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of further education colleges losing their allocation of non-levied apprenticeship funding on (1) local employers, and (2) existing, and (3) potential, local apprentices.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
189 colleges of further education (FE) held contracts with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to deliver apprenticeships prior to this procurement. The ESFA received bids from 182 of these FE colleges in the procurement, of which 10 have not been offered awards. Six of these were because the bids did not meet the minimum scoring threshold, and the remaining four were due to the awards falling below the £200,000 minimum contract value, set to ensure viable contracts for providers, employers and the ESFA. The 10 colleges are dispersed around England as shown in the table below.
East Midlands | 0 |
East of England | 1 |
Greater London | 3 |
North East | 0 |
North West | 2 |
South East | 1 |
South West | 1 |
West Midlands | 2 |
Yorkshire & Humber | 0 |
All FE colleges with apprentices already in training will continue to receive funding until they have completed their learning. In addition, subject to limits on the number of starts, we have offered all existing providers that were unsuccessful in the procurement a three-month extension of their current contracts to the end of March 2018, allowing them to take on new starts. All providers who are on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers are still able to deliver to levy paying employers.
Potential providers were required to indicate the sectors and regions in which they would be delivering apprenticeships in their tenders. We are confident that non-levy paying employers can access high quality apprenticeship training to support their growth and success, regardless of where in the country they operate in.
We will continue to keep this under review and take action where necessary.
Asked by: Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many further education colleges lost their allocation of non-levied apprenticeships funding in the recent Education and Skills Funding Agency procurement process; and in which regions were those colleges.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
189 colleges of further education (FE) held contracts with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to deliver apprenticeships prior to this procurement. The ESFA received bids from 182 of these FE colleges in the procurement, of which 10 have not been offered awards. Six of these were because the bids did not meet the minimum scoring threshold, and the remaining four were due to the awards falling below the £200,000 minimum contract value, set to ensure viable contracts for providers, employers and the ESFA. The 10 colleges are dispersed around England as shown in the table below.
East Midlands | 0 |
East of England | 1 |
Greater London | 3 |
North East | 0 |
North West | 2 |
South East | 1 |
South West | 1 |
West Midlands | 2 |
Yorkshire & Humber | 0 |
All FE colleges with apprentices already in training will continue to receive funding until they have completed their learning. In addition, subject to limits on the number of starts, we have offered all existing providers that were unsuccessful in the procurement a three-month extension of their current contracts to the end of March 2018, allowing them to take on new starts. All providers who are on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers are still able to deliver to levy paying employers.
Potential providers were required to indicate the sectors and regions in which they would be delivering apprenticeships in their tenders. We are confident that non-levy paying employers can access high quality apprenticeship training to support their growth and success, regardless of where in the country they operate in.
We will continue to keep this under review and take action where necessary.
Asked by: Scott Mann (Conservative - North Cornwall)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in frequency and scale of algal blooms on the health of the marine environment in the last 12 months.
Answered by Thérèse Coffey
The health of the marine environment including phytoplankton (and any potential algal blooms) is monitored for ecological status in the nearshore coasts and estuaries and for environmental status from the coast to offshore waters. The majority of English marine waters are considered to be healthy. There are some localised areas – estuaries or shallow harbours – that are affected by eutrophication but this is primarily due to nuisance green macroalgal mats, not blooms of phytoplankton.
Several years’ worth of data is used to assess the health of marine waters which allows for typical variation between different years (often due to local meteorological conditions). The Environment Agency uses the latest evidence from a number of sources in a regular Weight of Evidence (WoE) assessment that suggests there has not been a significant change in recent years.
The Environment Agency is involved, with other partners, in the S-3 EUROHAB project which is investigating using data from the recently launched European satellite, Copernicus Sentinel 3, to track the growth and spread of harmful algal blooms in the Channel in near real time.
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) collects water samples from designated shellfish growing areas on behalf of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). These are analysed for various species of potentially harmful phytoplankton in the context of human health. The FSA data at individual beds shows that the proportion of samples over harmful limits varies quite widely each year.
Asked by: Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party - Livingston)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether it is his policy to ban the importation of American beef containing artificial growth hormones after the UK leaves the EU.
Answered by George Eustice
Any new trade deals must be right for UK consumers, businesses and farmers, and ensure food safety, environmental protection, and animal welfare standards.
The UK has transposed EU Council Directive 96/22/EC (as amended) into national law ‘Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015', with similar legislation for Wales and Northern Ireland, which prohibits the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported products. This protection will continue after we exit the EU.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, published last week, will ensure that the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control. The purpose of the Bill is to convert EU law into UK law as it applies in the UK at the moment of exit. This will apply to the laws and rules we have now, and will update references to EU Council Directive 96/22/EC in our national laws.
Our high environmental and food standards will not be diminished or diluted as a result of leaving the EU or establishing free trade deals with other countries.
Asked by: Marquess of Lothian (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that air pollution levels are reduced in the UK, in the light of the alert declared in London recently as a result of toxic air peaks.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The United Kingdom complies with EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, but faces challenges in achieving nitrogen dioxide limits, along with 16 other EU member states. That is why we have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to reduce transport emissions and the autumn statement provided a further £290 million to support greener transport. Air quality is improving, but the Government recognises that we need to go further and faster and we will be consulting on a new national plan by 24 April. The final plan will be in place by the end of July.
As part of the national air quality plan already in place we are requiring five cities (Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton) to implement Clean Air Zones.
London faces the greatest challenge because of the size and complexity of the Capital’s transport networks and construction activity from unprecedented growth. The Mayor is responsible for air quality in the capital and has reserve powers under Part IV of the 1995 Environment Act to enable this. Under the Act the Mayor may direct the boroughs in the Greater London area concerning how they should assess and prioritise action in their areas. From September 2020 an Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will be introduced in London. The ULEZ will apply to all cars, motorcycles, vans, minibuses, buses, coaches and HGVs and will cover the same area as the current Congestion Charge Zone.