zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
Rose Street School Education Consultation To Parents/ Carers, and Governors 2 June 2014 Kent County Council is proposing to expand Rose Street School, Rose Street, Sheerness, ME12 1AW from 210 places to 420 places, increasing the published admission number (PAN) from 30 to 60 for Year R entry in September 2015. Why do we need to expand Rose Street School? We would like to increase Rose Street School to help provide more places for local children. The Isle of Sheppey, especially Sheerness, is experiencing a shortfall of primary places due to an increase in population. Kent County Council has a statutory duty to provide enough school places and is therefore proposing to provide additional school places by expanding Rose Street School from one to two forms of entry (from 30 to 60 Reception places each year) to ensure that every parent/carer who wants a school place for their child will get one. The Sheerness West Federation has already agreed to admit an additional 30 children into Year R in September 2014 and accommodation will be provided for the extra Reception class. This is a temporary expansion and if, following consultation, agreement is reached to permanently expand the school, then additional accommodation would be provided to enable the school to expand. Rose Street School is a popular school and for September 2014 entry, 155 applicants selected the school as a preferred choice. There are currently 30 places available, which provides limited scope to meet parental preference. Why are there no plans to show how this expansion will be delivered on site? We are in the very early stages of consulting on this proposed expansion and, although initial scoping of the site has shown there is sufficient space, we need to consult firstly on educational aspects of expanding the school. The building work will be part of a separate consultation process and once have been drawn up, you will have the opportunity to comment on them. Our Property Department will hold a pre-planning consultation drop-in event at the school, where all stakeholders, including local residents, will have an opportunity to view the plans, ask questions and make comments. This will enable the design team to take into consideration everyone’s views before submitting final plans for approval. Are you just providing classrooms? What about other spaces pupils need? The Local Authority will work closely with the school’s senior leadership team to ensure that all appropriate accommodation and facilities are provided to enable them to deliver an effective curriculum in a way that suits the needs of the school. The school will be able to provide parents with information about how they will organise the school day and any
There needs to be a proactive approach rather than a reactive one. Cytologists be retrained to histology. It may be hard for them to change areas, though. Universities were not involved in the consultation process. If cytologist numbers are going to be reduced, conversations will need to happen with universities to alter the training programmes they provide. Equity Better education in the schools HPV, the vaccine, and screens is needed. This is important for informed consent. This includes how it is presented to parents, who are currently told it’s a vaccine for sexually transmitted infections, is a negative framing. The rates of screening non-attendance are quite high for Maori and Pacific women, so how will the NSU cope with a potential increase? 80-90% of women clear the HPV infection, but most women do not understand that may occur naturally without treatment. Telling them they have the virus creates an environment that carries high anxiety, etc. Better education is needed to address this Will screens be free? If the government was concerned about priority group women, their smears would be free. Categorising women as “priority women” based on their ethnicity might change to their HPV immunisation status. NSU needs to consider this. Language used the programme needs to be careful. It won’t be a “smear” test anymore. It also is not a “cervical cancer vaccine,” which may cause women to think they’re fully protected against cancer. Immunisation Why not vaccinate boys? Gardasil has been introduced for boys in Australia. Why not use a two-dose immunisation? Money saved by not administering the third dose could be used elsewhere. Further research There is a need to examine the immunisation coverage rate for Maori and Asian women. It will be important to monitor different HPV to see if there are any changes over a couple of years with increased immunisations, screenings, etc. Additional feedback What about immune-suppressed women? Is there a different algorithm for them? With the specificity of the test, would the programme accept HPV tests from overseas? Will migrant women from overseas be screened as a part of the programme? Overseas smear tests are not currently accepted. Could this be part of an immigration medical check? If there is a significant rise in HPV, how will the NSU manage this?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Question 5. Do you have any comments on the impact of the proposals on students who share a particular protected characteristic? ( ) Yes ( ) No ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… We want to write clearly and effectively, putting the reader first. How easy to read did you find this consultation? ( ) Very easy to read ( ) Easy to read ( ) Neither hard nor easy to read ( ) Hard to read ( ) Very hard to read Do you have any comments or suggestions about the style of writing? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… How many of our consultations have you read in the last 12 months? ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) More than
40. We take the view that the allocation of a substantial 60% in an PLR payment to the author means that it is fair and reasonable to allow for an editor’s and/or translator’s share to be deducted from the author’s share of the PLR payment. General exclusions Remote e-book downloads 41. Remote downloads of (e-books downloaded outside a library’s premises) are not covered in this consultation and are not covered in the provisions in the DEA which will extend the PLR. This would stray into the communication to the public right in the Copyright Directive which has been implemented in section 182CA of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (i.e. “making available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time of their choosing”). One loan of a work at a time 42. The 2009 Government Response to the Consultation on the Extension of Public Lending Right to Rights Holders of Books in Non-print Formats set out the intention that PLR will be paid on the basis of one loan to one reader at one time, and in Response to the Sieghart Review in 2013, the Government stated that the interests of publishers and booksellers should be protected so that a library should only lend a single digital copy of a work at a time. This consultation is restricted to the implementation of the provisions of section s 43 of the DEA (new rights holders and new formats), and the matter is therefore not within scope for this consultation. However, please note that the European Commission has recently launched a review of the copyright rules of the European Union and this covers e-lending by libraries more generally. Do you with the proposed amendments to the PLR Scheme set out below? It is proposed that pre-existing contractual arrangements between libraries and rights holders for of audio-books and on-site e-books should be preserved to run their agreed term of law, but such libraries and rights holders would be free to negotiate the termination of such arrangements in favour of the newly expanded PLR Scheme. audio-
Q1b. To what extent do you or disagree with the criteria to identify the local authority areas where we will conduct an integrated inspection? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer 27 (20%) 79 (59%) 15 (11%) 5 (4%) 0 8 (5%) Proposal two: the judgement structure Q2a. To what extent do you agree or disagree that Ofsted, CQC and HMIC should use the same judgement structure? Strongly agree Agree Neither nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer 37 (28%) 81 (60%) 7 (5%) 4 (3%) 0 5 (3%) Q2b. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the inspectorates should make a shared judgement about the effectiveness of the LSCB? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer 44 (33%) 78 (58%) 4 (3%) 1 (1%) 0 7 (5%) Proposals and four: the evaluation criteria Q3a. To what extent do you agree or disagree that Ofsted should continue to use the judgement criteria outlined in the single inspection framework when conducting an integrated inspection? Strongly agree Agree Neither nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer 26 (19%) 77 (57%) 13 (10%) 5 (4%) 2 (1%) 11 (8%) Q3b. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the criteria CQC propose for evaluating the effectiveness of health services? Strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer The overall effectiveness of health services? 26 (19%) 71 (53%) 15 (11%) 4 (3%) 0 18 (13%) The experiences and progress of 22 (16%) 75 (56%) 9 (7%) 1 (1%) 0 27 (20%)
children who need help and protection? The experiences and progress of children looked after and care leavers? 36 (27%) 64 (48%) 7 (5%) 4 (3%) 0 23 (17%) Leadership, management and governance? 29 (22%) 71 (53%) 6 (4%) 2 (1%) 0 26 (19%) Q3c. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the criteria HMIC propose for evaluating the effectiveness of the police force? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer The overall effectiveness of the police force? 24 (18%) 65 (49%) 12 (9%) 6 (4%) 0 27 (20%) The experiences and progress of children who need help and protection? 26 (19%) 65 (49%) 7 (5%) 5 (4%) 0 31 (23%) Leadership, management and governance? 27 (20%) 60 (45%) 11 (8%) 3 (2%) 0 33 (24%) Q4a. To what extent do you agree or disagree with criteria HMI Probation propose for evaluating the effectiveness of: The National Probation Services and Community Rehabilitation Companies? Strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer 20 (15%) 64 (48%) 12 (9%) 4 (3%) 1 (1%) 33 (24%) Youth offending teams? Strongly agree Agree Neither nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No answer
progress of children and young people living in the home’ judgement? and young people are helped and protected’ judgement? effectiveness of leaders and managers’ judgement? Number of responses % Number of responses % Number of responses % Strongly agree or agree 73 90% 56 70% 69 86% Neither nor disagree 7 9% 20 25% 6 8% Disagree or strongly disagree 1 1% 4 5% 5 6% Total 81 100% 80 100% 80 100% No response 1 2 2 Proposal 2: Our approach to homes judged to be inadequate Response Q12a. Do you agree or disagree that we should take a risk-based approach in our follow-up to homes judged to be inadequate? Q12b: Do you agree that in some instances inspectors should be able to give an improved inspection judgement without undertaking a further full inspection and where all requirements have been met? Number of responses % Number of responses % Strongly agree or agree 75 93% 74 93% Neither nor disagree 6 7% 2 3% Disagree or strongly disagree 0 0% 3 4% Don’t know 0 0% 1 1% Total 81 100% 80 100%
As a result of enactment of Beneficial Ownership and Control Regulations, the following regulations would be amended by insertion of the new sections as follows: Companies Regulations – new section 9A will be added (Statement of initial beneficial ownership and control); Limited Liability Partnership Regulations – new sub-section to be inserted 2(2)(ca) in relation to a statement of initial beneficial ownership. Further, section 2(4) new provisions in relation to requirement of initial beneficial ownership and control must be added; Foundations Regulations – new section 9A (Statement of initial beneficial ownership and control) will be added; and Commercial Licensing Regulations – new section 16(3A) will be added. ANNEX A: PROPOSED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL REGULATIONS ANNEX B: PROPOSED COMPANIES REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT No. 3) REGULATIONS 2018 ANNEX C: PROPOSED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS (AMENDMENT NO. 1) REGULATIONS 2018
L65.8 Other specified nonscarring hair loss L65.9 Nonscarring hair loss, unspecified L66.0 Pseudopelade L66.1 Lichen planopilaris L66.2 Folliculitis decalvans L66.8 Other cicatricial alopecia L66.9 Cicatricial alopecia, unspecified L67.0 Trichorrhexis nodosa L67.1 Variations in hair colour L67.8 hair colour and hair shaft abnormalities L67.9 Hair colour and hair abnormality, unspecified L68.0 Hirsutism L68.1 Acquired hypertrichosis lanuginosa L68.2 Localised hypertrichosis L68.3 Polytrichia L68.8 Other hypertrichosis L68.9 Hypertrichosis, unspecified L70.0 Acne vulgaris L70.1 Acne conglobata L70.2 Acne varioliformis L70.3 Acne tropica L70.4 Infantile acne L70.5 Acne excoriee L70.8 Other acne L70.9 Acne, unspecified L71.0 Perioral dermatitis L71.1 Rhinophyma L71.8 Other rosacea L71.9 Rosacea, unspecified L72.0 Epidermal cyst L72.1 Trichilemmal cyst L72.2 Steatocystoma multiplex L72.8 Other follicular cysts of skin and subcutaneous tissue L72.9 Follicular cyst of skin and subcutaneous tissue, unspecified L73.0 Acne keloid L73.1 Pseudofolliculitis barbae L73.8 Other specified follicular disorders L73.9 Follicular disorder, unspecified L74.0 Miliaria rubra L74.1 Miliaria crystallina L74.2 Miliaria profunda L74.3 Miliaria, unspecified L74.4 Anhidrosis L74.8 Other eccrine sweat disorders L74.9 Eccrine sweat disorder, unspecified L80 Vitiligo
Objective One - To deliver a holistic home safety intervention to those most at risk within the communities of Mid and West Wales. (More information can be at page 16 of the Draft Annual Improvement Plan 2016/17) Q1 - Do you Objective One; Is to understand? Yes No Don’t Know Has the right actions? Yes No Don’t Know Has the right measures? Yes No Don’t Know Do you have any other comments/observations? Objective Two - To reduce the incidence of arson across Mid and West Wales. (More information can be found at page 17 of the Draft Annual Improvement Plan 2016/17) Q2 - Do you think Objective Two; Is clear/easy to understand? Yes No Don’t Know Has the actions? Yes No Don’t Know Has the right measures? Yes No Don’t Know Do you have any other comments/observations? Objective Three - To deliver our part of the Welsh Government Road Safety Framework. (More information can be found at page 18 of the Draft Annual Improvement Plan 2016/17) Q3 - Do you think Objective Three; Is clear/easy to understand? Yes No Don’t Know Has the right actions? Yes No Don’t Know Has the right measures? Yes No Don’t Know Do you have any comments/observations? Objective Four - To conduct a thorough, evidence based and robust review of the risks facing our communities; including the disposition of our fire stations; vehicles; equipment;
Respondents The table below shows the response rate against the method of response Method of Response No of Responses Online Questionnaire 50 Postal Response to Questionnaire 3 Email 1 Table 1: Response rate against method of response residents, as declared in their questionnaire submissions, made up 85.19% of the respondents with the next largest group being ‘any other group or in any other capacity’ at 7.41%. The two smaller groups, ‘a representative of a local community group or resident’s association’ and ‘on behalf of a Parish/Borough/District council in an official capacity’ came in at 3.70% and 1.85% respectfully. For analysis of residents directly affected by the proposals and of those living within immediate area, please see 4.1.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. Question 2 Results Please tell us in what capacity you are completing this questionnaire
TN9 2LP 1.85% Unknown 1.85% Question 1: Response percentage against postcode An analysis was carried out of post codes in the TN9 2- - area, which would include all properties directly affected by the proposed scheme, i.e. fronting directly onto the proposed shared use facility. Please also see 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to provide a new ‘shared use’ pedestrian/cycle route along Vauxhall Lane, Pembury Road, St Stephen’s Street and Priory Road to Quarry Hill Road 35.19% of those that responded to the survey strongly disagree with the proposed scheme against 31.48% of those who strongly agree. 18.52% said they tended to agree against a figure of 9.29% who tended to disagree. 5.56% of those surveyed said they neither agreed nor disagreed. Extent of agreement Number Strongly Agree 17 Tend to Agree 10 Neither Agree nor Disagree 1 Not declared 2 Tend to Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 19 Total respondents 54
South footway heading southeast (towards Tudeley Lane) 511 403 76 31 footway heading northwest (towards Quarry Hill Road) 110 62 334 269 footway heading northwest (towards Quarry Hill Road) 97 50 588 506 PEMBURY ROAD CYCLE MOVEMENTS IN MORNING & AFTERNOON PEAK PERIODS 07:00 – 10:00 Peak hour 08:00 – 09:00 16:00 – 19:00 Peak hour 16:00 – 17:00 On carriageway heading southeast (towards Tudeley Lane) 5 2 5 3 On carriageway heading northwest (towards Quarry Hill Road) 11 2 3 0
Building natural supports The consultation identified the importance of natural supports as a safeguard. Broadly, were references to the need to recognise and support parents and carers in their roles, to support positive relationships, and to support other family members, including siblings. More specifically, circles of support and peer support networks were identified as useful. A circle of support involves a group of people voluntarily coming together to help formulate, promote and support the goals of a person with disability. Because they involve a number of people they enable people to take time out when needed and provide ongoing and sustainable support. Stakeholders also referred to community visitors as a useful support for people with few natural supports (see section 6.2.2) and to the need to for supports to positive community connections and community capacity for inclusion (discussed in the next section). In this context, a submission from a person with autism noted that there is a need to support people with intellectual disability to understand different relationships because they can be susceptible to predators and to recognise that intensive social environments can be incredibly traumatising for people with autism. This person was concerned that professionals had pushed them to make a friend, join a group and make local connections, without considering their individual needs, why they were not making friends, what skills they might need to develop first, and whether they wanted to participate. Individual capacity building Talk to us and ask us what we want and need. Have more advocates who only work for us to help us. Advocates teach us about our rights and teach us honestly. They are the only ones who tell us everything and don't baby us. [Person with disability, Tasmania, questionnaire] People with disability can learn new skills – it may take longer, and they may learn in a different way, but they can learn – with the right support. Skills around keeping safe, like decision-making and speaking up when things aren’t going well are important safeguards for people. But regardless of all the capacity building that might be done, it’s still important that independent advocates are there to keep an eye on things and support people to speak up when they need to. Advocates can also help people to learn new skills by showing them a way to approach something and supporting them to do it themselves. I see advocacy as a capacity building thing as well as a preventative thing and someone to help when things go wrong. [Parent, online discussion forum]
Historic England South East Region Historic England South West Region Natural England Forestry Commission Environment Agency Verderers of the New Forest MMO South Eastern Marine Area Highways Agency National Grid Property Bournemouth Water Wessex Water Southern Water NHS England South East office Ashurst & Colbury Parish Council Beaulieu Parish Council Boldre Parish Council Bramshaw Parish Council Bransgore Parish Council Breamore Parish Council Brockenhurst Parish Council Burley Parish Council Copythorne Parish Council Lodge Parish Council East Boldre Parish Council Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council Exbury & Lepe Parish Council Fawley Parish Council Fordingbridge Town Council Godshill Parish Council Hale Parish Council Hordle Parish Council Hyde Parish Council Hythe & Dibden Parish Council Landford Parish Council Lymington & Pennington Town Council Lyndhurst Parish Council Marchwood Parish Council Melchet Park & Plaitford Parish Council Milford on Sea Parish Council Minstead Parish Council Netley Marsh Parish Council New Milton Town Council Redlynch Parish Council Ringwood Town Council Sopley Parish Council Sway Parish Council Totton & Eling Town Council Wellow Parish Council Whiteparish Parish Council Woodgreen Parish Council Dorset County Council Southampton City Council Christchurch Borough Council East Dorset District Council Wiltshire Council Wiltshire Council Hampshire County Council New Forest District Council Test Valley Borough Council Desmond Swayne MP Julian MP Christopher Chope MP Caroline Nokes MP John Glen MP Action Hampshire Age Concern Hampshire Associated British Ports Beaulieu Estate Bournemouth International Airport Ltd Cadland Estate Calshot Activities Centre Campaign for National Parks Community First New Forest Country Land and Business Association Cranborne Chase & West Wilts Downs AONB Exbury Estate ExxonMobil Chemical Ltd Friends, Families and Travellers Fordingbridge Society Friends of Brockenhurst Hampshire and Isle of Wildlife Trust Hampshire Association of Councils Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service (New Forest Group) Hampshire Gardens Trust Hampshire Scouts Hamptworth Estate Homes and Communities Agency Lepe Country Park Lymington & District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Limited Lymington Harbour Commissioners Lymington Society Jackson Planning Meyrick Estate National Farmers' Union National Trust Network Rail New Forest Access for All New Forest Access New Forest Association New Forest Association of Local Councils New Forest Business Partnership New Forest Centre New Forest Commoners' Defence Association New Forest Equestrian Association New Forest Friends of the Earth New Forest Hounds New Forest Runners Club New Forest Sports Council New Forest Tourism Association New Forest Transition New Forest Trust Pylewell Estate
Principles of Assessment in relation to Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Assessment is underpinned by the Principles of Assessment including the fair principle (equal opportunity for all learners) and consistent principle (consistency in approach to assessment across ETBs, programmes and modules). The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 sets out the statutory basis for QQI’s engagement with RPL having responsibility for policy of access, transfer and progression of learners (QQI 2017). The provider, is responsible for consistent approach to RPL and implementation must be in accordance with the provider's policy on Access, Transfer and Progression. The provider’s Quality Assurance System overarches these principles and ensures learner achievement is assessed in a fair and consistent way in line with the national standards for the award.
Date________________ Alternative/GNETS Teacher: _____________________ Core Academic Content of Conference: _______________________________________ Record of Conference Discussion: Course Specific Content or Skills Teaching Strategies/ Resources Date and Time of Next Conference: __________________________________________ Signatures: Alternative/GNETS Teacher: ________________________________ Core Academic Teacher: ____________________________________ Name, not signature, of HiQ Core Academic Content Teacher is required because this was a _____ phone conference OR _____ email conference. *Lesson Plans aligned to the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards MUST be attached to monthly conference record.
Category 2: those that would make a normal business change in the fifth year, but bring forward that change to comply with the four year transition, 15 per cent of 15800 Category 3: those that would not make a change, the remaining 10 per cent. Category 2 annual costs over 10 years are $0.42 million per annum. Category 3 annual over 10 years are $0.28 million per annum. Total costs per year over 10 years for this option are $0.7 million per annum. The costs to make changes to a label with regard to pre-production and post-production costs has been provided through industry consultation and reflect an average of costs provided to an independent reviewer from 9 prescription, OTC and complementary medicines sponsors. Regulatory Burden and Cost Offset Estimate Table Average Annual Regulatory Costs (from Business as usual) Change in costs ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals change in cost Option 2 $0.2 $0.2 Option 3 (a) $3 $3 Option 3 (b) $1.7 $1.7 Option 3 (c) $0.7 $0.7 by Sector $ $ $ $ Cost offset ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals by Source Electronic Submission of Data Dossiers OBPR ref: 14783 $-3 $ $ $-3 Are all new costs offset? yes, costs are offset  no, costs are not offset  deregulatory, no offsets required (Change in costs - Cost offset) ($million) $0
Proposal Evaluation All proposals received in response to this RFP by the stated deadline will receive a comprehensive, fair, and impartial evaluation. Consensus scoring will be used in the evaluation process. Consensus scoring involves a solidarity or general agreement of opinion among evaluators, based on information and data contained in the RFP responses. The evaluation of any proposal may be suspended and/or terminated at the Board’s discretion at any point during the evaluation process at which the Board determines that said proposal and/or proposer fails to meet any of the mandatory requirements as stated in this RFP, the proposal is determined to contain fatal deficiencies to the extent that the likelihood of selection for contract negotiations is minimal, or the Board receives reliable information that would make contracting with the proposer impractical or otherwise not in the best interests of the Board and/or the State of Mississippi. An evaluation committee will evaluate the proposals a three-phase process, consisting of Compliance, Analysis, and Finalist phases. The evaluation process, including the evaluation factors and weights, is described below: Compliance - In this phase of the evaluation process, all proposals received will be reviewed to determine if the following mandatory requirements of this RFP have been satisfied: Proposal submission deadline met Required format followed Signed original proposal, requested number of copies of proposal, and complete electronic copy of proposal in Microsoft Office® format on drive or compact disc and redacted copy of proposal and redacted electronic copy Minimum Vendor Requirements met Scope of Services Confirmation Signed Statutory Requirement disclosure statement Signed Statement of Compliance with high degree of acceptance Signed Acknowledgment of Responses to Vendor Questions, if any posted Signed Acknowledgement of RFP Amendment(s), if any posted Duration of proposal requirement met Narrative questionnaire answered Required proposal attachments provided Weight – This phase of the evaluation is considered Pass/Fail. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the proposal being eliminated from further consideration. Those proposers passing the Compliance Phase will be evaluated further. The Board reserves the right to waive minor informalities in a proposal in this phase of the evaluation.
Australia. Since commencing this role, Mark has been involved in a number of AEMC, AER, Senate, DRET and Productivity Commission processes. Mark is a member of a number of energy consultative groups including the AER's Customer Consultative Group, and ESOCSA's Community Advisory Committee. He is also an inaugural and continuing member of the national Consumer Roundtable on Energy. Mark is currently the President of the Economics Society of SA, a Member of the Standards Australia reference group regarding energy networks, member of the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce and Chair of Innovative Community Action Networks (Education) for Adelaide East and Hills region. Ms Bev Hughson Ms Bev Hughson has 30 years of experience. In 2012, Bev established her own consulting company, Darach Energy Consulting Services, providing advice and support services to consumer organisations on energy related matters. Bev previously worked at Origin Energy Retail Limited. At Origin, Bev had a number of responsibilities including managing the retail regulatory policy and strategy functions during a time of structural change. She was previously the national retail pricing and tariffs manager, responsible for gas and electricity pricing, including negotiating regulated pricing arrangements with state regulators. Ms Ruth Lavery Ms Ruth Lavery is a former Director, Analysis and Policy Development and Program Manager at IPART. While working at IPART Ruth provided economic and regulatory analysis and competition policy advice to the New South Wales (NSW) Government and led reviews of the financial effectiveness of monopoly businesses in NSW. Ruth is currently serving a second term as a Trustee of the NSW Government’s Responsible Gambling Fund. Mr Bruce Mountain Mr Bruce Mountain is an energy economist and has worked in this field for 22 years. He has expertise in the economic regulation of networks and the design of electricity markets and renewable energy policies. As a Director at Carbon and Energy markets (CME), Bruce has worked with a range of bodies including energy regulators, government departments, industry associations, energy users and non-governmental organisations. Mr David Prins Mr David Prins is the Managing Director of Etrog Consulting, a consultancy providing advice and resources to clients in energy and utilities. David has 23 years of experience specialising in the application of effective regulation and competition in electricity and gas industries.
Points of principle Firstly, we have concerns the appropriateness of any further “cost recovery” (whether via the RAB or exit charges) for meters that may have been in place for many years and where, therefore, costs may have already been fully recovered through depreciation charges. Secondly, we would have concerns if there were to be any incentives on the networks to install new meters that may have an effect both on metering competition and on generating new costs to recover from consumers (whether via depreciation charges or exit fees). Meter types 5 and 6 Sub-panel 1 supports the AER’s classification of Types 5 and 6 metering services as “alternative control services” in the Stage 1 F&As for NSW and ACT (excluding metering installation services in NSW, which are unregulated). The sub-panel believes that the AER can take further action, which will facilitate the establishment of a competitive regime for advanced metering technology. Cost recovery of legacy metering investments To the extent that continued cost recovery by DNSPs of regulator approved legacy metering investments is deemed reasonable, we believe this cost recovery should have minimal distortionary effects on the emerging contestable market for smart meters. We remain concerned a trend towards significant investment by ActewAGL in type 5 meters that could result in ActewAGL charging significant exit charges for the next regulatory period, as a minimum. The imposition of exit fees to provide for cost recovery of these metering assets would be detrimental to the emerging contestable market in smart meters and therefore, against the long term consumer interest. AS an example, the exit fee for CT meters in South Australia has been reported to be a significant barrier to the emerging market in advanced metering technology. In consideration of exit fees, the Standing Council on Energy and Resources (SCER) has proposed in its Competition in Metering and Related Services Rule Change Proposal Consultation Paper that an exit fee should be based on the average depreciated value of the stock of the distribution business's existing accumulation and manually read interval meters. We are opposed to exit fees for accumulation and manually read interval meters and believe that exit fees are a significant barrier to consumers moving to adopt advanced metering technology. Legacy metering assets replaced during the Victorian AMI program were treated as follows: For metering assets installed from 01 January 2006, including accumulation meters and manually read interval meters, assets were reflected on the newly established Metering Asset Base, and the depreciation of these assets was
Summary of Issues Addressed The following table sets out our understanding of the AER’s proposed approach, as specified in the Preliminary Framework and Approach, with our response summary. Sections 2 – 9 of this submission provide discussion and argument relating to our summary responses. Preliminary F&A Element - NSW CCP10 Response Summary Issue 1: Classification of distribution services Pages 6 - 12 Classification of services into groups as: Direct Control (common distribution services, Ancillary services); Negotiated; and Unclassified (Metering services, Connection services, public lighting and unregulated distribution services) The CCP supports classification groups. The CCP supports consistency across jurisdictions possible Common Distribution services to be classified as “Direct Control Services” Agreed Emergency Recoverable works as Common Distribution services and therefore direct control services Agreed on the basis the EBSS applies to all NSW DBs Metering Services to be classified differently than in the past due to introduction of meter coordinator functions with new metering arrangements from 1/12/17. Type 1-4: unclassified Type 5,6 meters: not classified Type 7: direct control Type 1-4: agreed Type 5-6: agreed as legacy services Type 7: agreed Metering coordinator, metering provider and metering data provider: Unregulated services. Agreed as this is necessary to facilitate competition under the AEMC contestability framework and the guideline Connection Services Premise Connections: not classified Extensions – db makes financial contribution: standard control All other extensions: not classified Augmentations: Standard Control Agreed Ancillary Services: Direct Control Agreed Public Lighting: Direct Control Partial agreement. CCP recommends that AER assist in negotiations for a binding Public Lighting Code to improve consistency of performance standards and emergence of developing
by a qualified vocational rehabilitation counselor at any time you apply for services. 24. Independent Living Services If you wish services that are not necessarily connected to an employment goal, you may ask your counselor a referral to an Independent Living Counselor. The program offers a broad range of services to assist individuals that are blind or visually impaired to improve and/or maintain their ability to function independently in their home and community. Kentucky Office for the Blind
Vocational Rehabilitation Offices Ashland 411 19th Street Ashland, KY 41101 Toll free:1-800-334-6881 Phone: (606) 920-2000 Fax: (606) 920-2779 Bowling 955 Fairview Ave, St 100 Bowling Green, KY 42101 Toll free:1-800-222-1215 Phone: (270) 746-7479 Fax: (270) 746-7481 Covington Elizabethtown
1324 Madison Avenue Covington, KY Toll free:1-800-334-6895 Phone: (859) 371-3380 Fax (859) 371-0379 233 Ring Road, Ste 100 Elizabethtown, KY 42701 Toll free:1-800-760-6891 Phone: (270) 766-5126 Fax (270) 766-5125 Frankfort (Central Office) 275 East Main Street, 2EJ Frankfort, KY 40621 Toll free:1-800-321-6668 (502) 564-4754 Fax: (502) 564-6745 Lexington 333 Waller Ave, Ste 420 Lexington, KY 40504 Toll free:1-800-291-8424 Phone: (859) 246-2111 Fax: (859) 246-2112 Louisville Owensboro
8412 Westport Rd. Louisville, KY 40242 Toll free:1-800-346-2115 Phone: (502) 429-4460 Fax: (502) 429-7101 3108 Fairview Drive Owensboro, KY 42303 Toll free:1-800-334-6929 Phone: (270) 687-7306 Fax: (270) 687-7526 Paducah 416 South 6th Street Paducah, KY 42003 Toll free:1-800-334-6945 Phone: (270) 575-7315 Fax: (270) 575-7987 Prestonsburg 686 North Lake Drive Prestonsburg, KY 41653 Toll free:1-800-334-6940 (606) 889-1685 Fax: (606) 889-1686 Somerset 410 E. Mt Vernon Street, Suite 100 Charles W. McDowell Rehabilitation Center 8412 Westport Road
Ashland 411 19th Street Ashland, KY Toll free: 1-800-334-6881 Phone: (606) 920-2000 Fax: (606) 920-2779 Bowling Green 955 Fairview Ave, St 100 Bowling Green, KY 42101 Toll free: 1-800-222-1215 Phone: (270) 746-7479 Fax: (270) 746-7481 Covington 1324 Madison Avenue Covington, KY 41011 Toll free: 1-800-334-6895 Phone: (859) 371-3380 Fax (859) 371-0379 Elizabethtown 233 Ring Road, Ste 100 Elizabethtown, KY 42701 Toll free: 1-800-760-6891 Phone: (270) 766-5126 Fax (270) 766-5125 Frankfort (Central Office) 275 East Main Street, 2EJ Frankfort, KY 40621 Toll free: 1-800-321-6668 Phone: (502) 564-4754 Fax: (502) 564-6745 Lexington 333 Waller Ave, Ste 420 Lexington, KY 40504 Toll free: 1-800-291-8424 Phone: (859) 246-2111 Fax: (859) 246-2112 Louisville 8412 Westport Rd. Louisville, KY 40242 Toll free: 1-800-346-2115 Phone: (502) 429-4460 Fax: (502) 429-7101 Owensboro 3108 Fairview Owensboro, KY 42303 Toll free: 1-800-334-6929 Phone: (270) 687-7306 Fax: (270) 687-7526 Paducah 416 South 6th Street Paducah, KY 42003 Toll free: 1-800-334-6945 Phone: (270) 575-7315 Fax: (270) 575-7987 Prestonsburg 686 North Lake Drive Prestonsburg, KY Toll free: 1-800-334-6940 Phone: (606) 889-1685 Fax: (606) 889-1686 Somerset 410 E. Mt Vernon Street Suite 100 Charles W. McDowell Rehabilitation Center 8412 Westport Road
Consumer Insight Toolkit: Draft Overview of Requirements Arts Council England is looking for a service provider, consortium or contractor (which may be a joint venture comprising of a number of providers, or a prime contractor that may sub-contract certain elements of the services), to develop and implement a Consumer Insight Toolkit that will provide National Portfolio Organisations and the Arts Council with insight into what audiences, participants, peers, artists and creative practitioners think about the work being produced by National Portfolio Organisations across the 2018-22 investment period. This document outlines a draft overview of requirements for the provision of the Consumer Insight Toolkit service. There is no guarantee that any subsequent tender will align with these requirements. However, this document represents initial and current thinking and is designed to provide interested parties with a guide to the nature of the services to be provided to inform initial discussions amongst potential suppliers. We anticipate advertising an invitation to tender for this work in January 2018. Please address any queries to Terms of Contract Anticipated term of contract: 1 June 2018 to 31 March 2022 Upper budget limit: £2.3 million (inclusive of VAT) Brief Since 2013 Arts Council England has supported the arts and cultural sector to develop a standardised set of quality metrics and accompanying quality evaluation framework that uses self, peer and public assessment to capture the quality of arts and cultural work. Details of this work can be found on our website. We are now seeking a service provider, consortium or contractor (which may be a joint venture comprising of a number of providers, or a prime contractor that may sub-contract certain elements of the services), to use the principles of the to develop a Consumer Insight Toolkit and support our NPOs to adopt and embed it to help them better understand the impact of their work on the people that experience it. The service provider will also be expected to support the Arts Council to embed the toolkit within its systems and processes and extract insight from the data collected
Common Medical Event Services You May Need Your cost* if you use a Limitations & Exceptions In-Network Provider Out-of-Network Provider Habilitation services 20% Coinsurance 40% Coinsurance -- Coverage is limited to 60 visits per benefit period for Rehabilitation and Habilitation services combined for OT/PT and 30 visits per benefit period for Speech Therapy Skilled nursing care 20% Coinsurance 40% Coinsurance -- Coverage is limited to 100 visits per benefit period.-- Precertification required Durable medical equipment 20% Coinsurance 40% Coinsurance -- authorization may be required for benefits to be provided-- Limits may apply Hospice services 20% Coinsurance 20% Coinsurance -- Precertification may be required If your needs dental or eye care Eye exam Not Covered Not Covered Excluded Glasses Not Covered Not Covered Excluded Dental Not Covered Not Covered Excluded *HSA/HRA funds, if available, may be used to cover eligible medical expenses
NATIONAL National Complaints Governance and Learning Team Ms. Aoife Hilton, Senior Manager, QAV Division, 31/33 Catherine Street, Limerick. Tel: (061) 483209 Email: WEST - Consumer Affairs Contacts Regional Manager Mr. Liam Quirke Regional Manager Consumer Affairs HSE West, Merlin Park University Hospital, Galway Tel: (091) 775751 Fax: (091) 771318 Area Officers Consumer Affairs Area Officer HSE West, PCCC Offices, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Stranorlar, Co. Donegal. Tel: (074) 9189153/4 Fax: (074) 9130380 Email: Consumer Affairs Area Officer HSE West, Merlin Park University Hospital, Galway. Tel: (091) 775373 Fax: (091) 775858 Email: Consumer Affairs Area Officer HSE West, 31/33 Catherine Street, Limerick, Co. Limerick. Tel: 1850 24 1850 Fax: (061) 483350 Email: SOUTH - Consumer Affairs Contacts Regional Manager Mr. Liam Quirke Regional Manager Consumer Affairs HSE West, Merlin Park University Hospital, Galway Tel: (091) 775819 Fax: (091) 775858 Email: Area Officers Consumer Affairs Area Officer HSE South, Aras Slainte, Wilton Road, Cork. Tel: (021) 4928703 Consumer Affairs Area Officer HSE South Office Complex, Kilcreene Hospital, Kilkenny. Tel: (056) 7785598 Email: CHO 7, Dublin Midlands Hospital Group and Ireland East Hospital Group Consumer Affairs Contacts Regional Manager Ms. Debbie Keyes, Regional Manager Consumer Affairs Third Floor Scott Building, Midland Regional Hospital Campus, Arden Road, Tullamore, Co. Offaly. Tel: (057) 9357876 Fax: (057) 9357881 Email: Area Officers
Ms. Wendy Buckley, Area Officer HSE Oak House, Limetree Avenue, Millennium Park, Naas, Co. Kildare. Tel: (045) 880496 Email: Consumer Affairs Area Officer Floor Scott Building, Midland Regional Hospital Campus, Road, Tullamore, Co. Offaly. Tel: (057) 9357876 Email: Dublin East, CHO 6, CHO 8, CHO 9, RCSI Hospital Group and Children’s Hospital Group Consumer Affairs Contacts Regional Manager Ms. Rosalie Lynch, Regional Manager Consumer Affairs HSE Dublin North East, Bective Street, Co. Meath. Tel: (049) 4377343/(046) 9251264 Fax: (049) 4360494 Area Officers Ms. Alexia McKenna, Area Officer HSE Dublin North East, Loughtee Business Park, Drumalee Cross, Co. Tel: (049) 4377344 Fax: (049) 4377379 Email: Ms. Geraldine Area Officer HSE Dublin East, Unit 7 – Swords Business Campus, Balheary Road, Swords, Co. Dublin. Tel: (01) 8908728 Fax: (01) 8131882 Email:
Name of Focus Group Date and Time Note Taker (Name) Question: General Comments Prompt Participant Comment Record the prompts or probing questions used. Use a code / initials or number to identify who made the comment. Note down key points of discussion and/or time on recording. Follow up Required Note down any key points that you will need to come back to or ask more about
List of all affiliates/subsidiaries of the Company If the Company does not have any affiliates or subsidiaries—check the box as not applicable Provide the Licensee’s parent company If the Company does not have a parent company—check the box as not applicable Provide the following information for the contact person for this examination: Name and title: Address: Telephone number: Facsimile number: E-mail address: (a) Provide the principal office physical address: Street: City & Zip Code: Facsimile number: E-mail address: Website Address: Provide the mailing address if different than (a) above: Provide the address where the residential mortgage books and records are maintained if different than (a) above:
Questions and answers on Consumer Products – Managing Risk DISCLAIMER: Below is a list of the questions we received during our webinar “Consumer Products – Managing Risk” on 25th April 2012. Sometimes it cannot be ensured that the questions have been fully understood due to the lack of additional information such as pictures, drawings, instructions for use, intended use, etc. Therefore the answers listed here must be regarded as for guidance only. Question Answer Can you CE mark your own products if you test to the standards? Yes, but you need to be able to demonstrate that you are competent to carry out the testing in the same way a test laboratory would. On CE Marking (conformity assessment, you spoke about self certification, but please can you give some key examples of product types where there is still mandatory third party involvement (i.e. Notified Body) Machinery, medical and telecoms may need input from a Notified Body. We were looking at consumer products which in the main do not require Notified Body input As an importer, what documentation should I retain? For example: test reports, factory inspection report, shipment checks, declaration of conformity How do I know if the documentation supplied by the factory is sufficient? You can do some desk research yourself or you can come to a 3rd party such as TÜV SÜD Product Service For further information and guidance regarding Consumer Products, please contact TÜV SÜD Product Service on +44 (0) 1489 558100 or by email, info@tuvps.co.uk.