Author: admin

  • Caroline Spelman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Caroline Spelman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Spelman on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how much funding her Department has provided to (a) the UNHCR and (b) other organisations to support Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia in each of the last three years.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    Over the past three financial years DFID has disbursed £16,999,196 to UNHCR in Ethiopia (of which £7,010,225 was in 2013/14, £9,896,334 in 2014/15 and £91,637 in 2015/16).

    From this total, £1,108,571 was allocated for child protection services for Eritrean refugees (£368,068 in 2013/14 and £740,503 in 2014/15).

    A further £1,846,027 from this total was allocated over the three years in question for core relief items (basic household goods) for all refugees in Ethiopia, including Eritreans.

    Funding for Eritrean refugees was not provided directly to any other organisation in Ethiopia.

  • Derek Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Derek Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Derek Thomas on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether his Department records acts of alleged genocide by Daesh reported by refugees who are provided with humanitarian aid by his Department to support future criminal investigations.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We have not received such allegations from refugees. However, the UK is supporting evidence gathering by a range of state and non state actors for potential prosecutions. In Syria, the UK is funding the work of non-governmental organisations who are gathering evidence of Human Rights violations, including by Daesh and the Asad regime. In Iraq, we are supporting the victims of sexual violence and considering how we might best complement other evidence gathering efforts already underway. Working with international partners, we are doing everything we can to assist in the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used by judicial bodies to make a judgement on this matter.

  • Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Imran Hussain on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if her Department will take steps to increase prevention programmes for violence against women and girls in developing countries.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    Over the last few years DFID has rapidly and significantly scaled up its work on the prevention of Violence against Women and Girls. Between 2012 and 2014 we have had a 40% increase in programmes that aim to change social norms alone. We have also successfully worked to secure international targets on the prevention of violence against women and girls including Global Goal 5, which includes targets on ending all forms of violence against women and girls, FGM and CEFM.

  • Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Imran Hussain on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department is taking to encourage donor organisations and partner countries to include action on violence against women and girls in their sectoral programmes.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    DFID worked hard with others to secure Global Goal 5, which includes targets on ending all forms of violence against women and girls, FGM and CEFM. In addition DFID has been at the forefront of work with OECD-DAC to create a new reporting marker for development programmes that will more comprehensively track donor spend on violence against women and girls from 2016. These measures will ensure that action on violence against women and girls enters into the core work of donors and UN agencies. DFID is also providing funding to the UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women, which is testing and building evidence on interventions for the benefit of the whole international development community.

  • Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Imran Hussain – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Imran Hussain on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of the closure of the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya on refugees in that region; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    The Government recognises the scale of the burden and challenge facing Kenya in terms of the number of refugees hosted there. We also recognise that progress under the Tripartite Agreement between the government of Kenya and the international community must urgently speed up, and that more needs to be done to ensure a safe and dignified refugee return. We are concerned over any destabilising action and actions must be consistent with international law. We have confirmed the readiness of the UK to work with the Government of Kenya and other key parties to find a solution.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average fine is for people found guilty of breaking the law by not allowing the transport of blind people and their guide dogs in licensed taxis under the Equality Act 2010.

    Dominic Raab

    It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).

    The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.

    Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prosecutions each local authority has brought under the provisions governing a blind person’s right to travel in licensed taxis with their guide dogs of the Equality Act 2010.

    Dominic Raab

    It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).

    The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.

    Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many fines were issued for disability discrimination against blind people with guide dogs by licensed taxi drivers in each year for which information is available.

    Dominic Raab

    It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).

    The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.

    Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost of hotel bookings made for (a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) officials in his Department in each of the last five years.

    Mike Penning

    Details of Ministerial overseas travel, and senior officials business expenses are published on a quarterly basis (link below). The remaining information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/moj-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings

    “

  • Liz Saville Roberts – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Liz Saville Roberts – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Liz Saville Roberts on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of reform of access to legal aid in cases of domestic violence on children; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    When reforming legal aid the government was careful to protect legal aid for the highest priority cases, including those relating to domestic violence and child abuse.

    The government is committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of the reforms within 3 to 5 years of their implementation.