Author: admin

  • Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how much her Department paid to (a) G4S, (b) Serco, (c) Sodexo, (d) GEOAmey, (e) Capita, (f) Atos, (g) Mitie, (h) Working Links, (i) A4E, (j) MTC Amey, (k) GEO Group and (l) Carillion in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13 and (iv) 2013-14.

    Lynne Featherstone

    The table below details the amounts paid by DFID to the suppliers listed above, over the periods specified.

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    £

    £

    £

    £

    G4S

    509,960

    711,440

    595,279

    755,681

    Serco

    1,765

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Capita

    4,208,938

    3,397,155

    2,305,454

    1,415,700

    Atos

    6,315,202

    11,141,720

    16,399,297

    19,381,683

    Mitie

    1,026,152

    2,448,793

    2,838,096

    4,256,290

    GEO Group

    963

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil
  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what the value is of duplicate supplier payments identified by her Department since 2010; and what proportion of such payments have since been recovered in each of the last two financial years.

    Lynne Featherstone

    Duplicate payments to suppliers are shown in the table below.

    Value

    Financial Year

    £ 3,721,960.01

    2010/11

    £ 720,052.49

    2011/12

    £ 1,105,217.80

    2012/13

    £ 5,352,323.62

    2013/14

    The proportion of duplicate payments recovered over the last 4 years is 98.74%.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she is taking to ensure that UK aid spending is used in the manner intended.

    Lynne Featherstone

    DFID has rigorous internal systems and processes to ensure that its aid reaches the intended beneficiaries and delivers results. A business case is mandatory for all new funding proposals, and all cases over five million pounds are approved at ministerial level. Once a programme is underway a formal review is required annually and at completion, which assesses and records whether funds have been used for their intended purposes and the results that have been delivered. Assurance that our aid money is being used for the intended purposes is gained form a number of independent providers including Internal Audit Department.

    DFID has commissioned a package of reforms to further improve programme leadership, processes and capability and strengthen our oversight of spending.

  • Jim Murphy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Jim Murphy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Murphy on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps the Government has taken to meet the commitment made by the G20 heads of state in the final declaration of the Cannes Summit in November 2011 to reduce the average cost of transferring remittances to 5 per cent by 2014; and what assessment she made of the likelihood of the UK meeting this commitment.

    Justine Greening

    The UK is contributing to the achievement of the 5% target by supporting the development of payments infrastructure, with a focus on digitisation to reduce transaction costs.

    We also support piloting and scaling up mobile banking through a Technology Programme for Branchless Banking which is co-funded with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Master Card Foundation and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP). As of December 2013, the Programme has helped an estimated 31 million poor people globally to access financial services.

  • Charles Walker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Charles Walker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance judges will receive on settling inheritance disputes which were initially settled under the Sharia succession rules guidance issued by the Law Society.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and the Government has no intention to change this position.

    The legal profession is independent of Government and is regulated by approved regulators for which the Legal Services Board has oversight responsibility. The Law Society is the approved regulator for solicitors under the Legal Services Act 2007. On 13 March it published a practice note on Sharia succession rules to assist its members preparing wills for clients under the law of England and Wales. The Secretary of State has not had any discussions with The Law Society about its practice note. It is not for the Government to comment on the compatibility of the guidance with equalities legislation as the courts in England and Wales interpret and apply the law.

    The guidance does not, and cannot, change the law of England and Wales. The courts will continue to apply the law of England and Wales relating to the making of wills in exactly the same way as they did before the practice note was issued.

    The judiciary of England and Wales is independent of the Government and it would not be appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to issue guidance to the judiciary on how judges are to apply or interpret the law.

  • Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cases of child abduction where no attempt has been made to take the child out of the UK have reached court in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

    Simon Hughes

    The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Centrally held data does not indicate which defendants proceeded against under Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 were not taking the child out of the UK. This information may be held by the individual courts in England and Wales but as such it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Charles Walker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Charles Walker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Law Society on its inclusion of Sharia succession rules in its guidance; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and the Government has no intention to change this position.

    The legal profession is independent of Government and is regulated by approved regulators for which the Legal Services Board has oversight responsibility. The Law Society is the approved regulator for solicitors under the Legal Services Act 2007. On 13 March it published a practice note on Sharia succession rules to assist its members preparing wills for clients under the law of England and Wales. The Secretary of State has not had any discussions with The Law Society about its practice note. It is not for the Government to comment on the compatibility of the guidance with equalities legislation as the courts in England and Wales interpret and apply the law.

    The guidance does not, and cannot, change the law of England and Wales. The courts will continue to apply the law of England and Wales relating to the making of wills in exactly the same way as they did before the practice note was issued.

    The judiciary of England and Wales is independent of the Government and it would not be appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to issue guidance to the judiciary on how judges are to apply or interpret the law.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the value is of duplicate supplier payments identified by his Department since 2010; and what proportion of such payments have since been recovered in each of the last two financial years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    In the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 no duplicate supplier payments were made; all duplicate invoices were stopped before payment and therefore no recovery action was necessary. In 2010/11 duplicate payments totalling £8,964.35 were made. This represents a small proportion, 0.039%, of the total number of duplicate payments invoiced over the four year period. It is possible that this entire amount was recovered, however, disproportionate cost would be incurred in determining this.

  • Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of times fathers have had access to their children restricted in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what the reasons were for the restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

    Simon Hughes

    Details of the number of times fathers have had access to their children restricted in each of the last five years and the reasons for those restrictions are not held centrally and can only be obtained by manually checking every case file at disproportionate costs.

  • Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Laurence Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether courts link maintenance and contact with respect to children following the separation of the parents; and if he will make a statement.

    Simon Hughes

    The payment of child maintenance and the operation of children arrangements are two separate issues which are both vitally important for separated parents. Children have a right to care and support and parents have a responsibility to provide it, regardless of whether they are separated. There is also great benefit to most children of continued contact with both parents, regardless of the financial circumstances. A dispute about child maintenance should not therefore deprive a child of meaningful contact with the other parent and vice-versa.

    The purpose of the child maintenance scheme is to make sure that parents fulfil their financial obligations to make provision for children with whom they no longer live. The Government believes that this is something parents should be able to manage for themselves through a family-based arrangement (in the vast majority of cases). The Department for Work and Pensions provides support to help them do so through the Child Maintenance Options Service (contactable on 0800-988-0988 or via www.cmoptions.org).

    The family courts deal with arrangements for children where parents have been unable to come to an agreement themselves. Here again, parents are encouraged to resolve their differences themselves. The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced, from April 2014, a legislative requirement on those who seek to issue certain family proceedings to first attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) to find out about family mediation. The other party is also expected to engage in the process.