Author: admin

  • Cat Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Cat Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what support the Government is providing to disabled refugees from Syria who are currently in Europe.

    Richard Harrington

    The UK is prioritising its support and aid efforts where the need is greatest. Only a small percentage of Syrians displaced from Syria are seeking asylum in Europe; the vast majority remain in Syria and neighbouring countries. Those that remain in the immediate region around Syria are more likely to be particularly vulnerable and this is rightly where our focus remains. We are the second largest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian crisis with £1.12 billion already pledged.

    With assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees we will identify the most vulnerable Syrian refugees who cannot be effectively supported in the region for resettlement through our Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme with the aim of resettling 20,000 refugees during this Parliament.

    The UK is not providing direct resettlement or other support to asylum seekers in other Member States. The UK is already providing practical support to those Member States who are experiencing particularly serious pressures and will provide a further ten personnel to the European Asylum Support Office.

  • Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress her Department has made on implementing the Prime Minister’s proposal that mothers’ names should be added to marriage certificates.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office is working with all interested parties to confirm the most efficient and effective way to enable mothers’ names to be recorded on marriage certificates.

    Achieving this is likely to require additional funding and changes to legislation, IT systems and administrative processes.

    The Government will confirm a timetable for the transition to a new system to introduce the changes in due course.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of current legislation regulating the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what fields of data are held about people recorded by CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Slaughter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the cost to the public purse was of legal fees in the case of Bondada, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (15 October 2015).

    James Brokenshire

    Costs incurred are £48, 575.35, including applicant’s costs of £31, 118.79.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2015 to Question 9671, for what reasons the Government cannot mandate companies to join the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    The Rana Plaza disaster demonstrated the need for a concerted effort by all stakeholders to address the challenges facing the garments industry in Bangladesh. As well as establishing 2 international initiatives (the Accord and the Alliance), The International Labour Organisation (ILO) worked with the Government of Bangladesh (GoB), employer organisations, and trade union representatives to develop the Tripartite National Plan of Action on Fire Safety and Structural Integrity (NTPA) and in 2014 the Government raised the minimum wage for the country’s garment workers by 77%.

    The Accord has been established as a voluntary, independent, legally binding agreement between Trade Unions and brands: we, and the many stakeholders involved, believe this is a more effective mechanism than making it mandatory. We actively encourage UK companies to join the Accord.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2015 to Question 9671, what estimate the Government has made of the proportion of UK companies which have joined the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    30 UK companies have signed the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh. We do not have comprehensive information on the total number of UK brands purchasing Garments from Bangladesh.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Andrew Rosindell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will take steps to reduce aid spending in countries with their own space programme.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    No UK aid money is spent on helping developing countries put people in space. We already take the growing ability of emerging economies like India and China to finance their own development programmes into account in reviewing our aid relationship with such countries.

    Through the ongoing Bilateral Aid Review, we will decide which countries will receive bilateral funding and how much. We will use a range of criteria to determine allocations to countries, including the level and persistence of extreme poverty in the country and the ability of the government of that country to finance its own development needs.

  • Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public body (NDPB) and agencies overseen by her Department will be affected by that Regulation; and what estimate she has made of the potential liability of her Department and its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed Regulation.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and the United Kingdom’s negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.

  • Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and agencies overseen by his Department will be affected by that Regulation; and what estimate he has made of the potential liability of his Department, its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed Regulation.

    Dominic Raab

    Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and our negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, NDPBs and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.