Author: admin

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what mechanisms are in place to ensure funding from her Department reaches the project for which it is intended.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    As set out in the UK aid strategy we are determined to ensure that aid is focussed on tackling the global challenges of our time, in order to eliminate poverty and advance the UK’s national interest. The Department for International Development works with many suppliers and partners to deliver hundreds of individual programmes, often in complex and high risk environments. It has rigorous internal systems and processes to ensure that its aid reaches the intended beneficiaries and delivers the intended results. These are reflected in a detailed programme management framework (known as the Smart Rules) which sets out rules and principles designed to ensure all funding is spent as intended and delivers value for money.

    Due Diligence Assessments are undertaken on organisations receiving funding from DFID. The Department also uses delivery chain maps to understand the number and complexity of suppliers involved in a programme and how funds flow to the beneficiaries. These tools allow us to identify, understand and manage potential risks as programmes are delivered and to ensure that funds are properly accounted for. Risk levels are regularly reviewed and programmes closed if risk levels rise too high.

    All programmes that are being implemented undergo a rigorous formal annual review which assesses and records whether funds have been used for their intended purposes and the results that have been delivered. Risks or issues identified during the review are recorded, addressed and monitored. In areas of high risk, particularly in fragile and conflict affected areas, the Department often uses monitoring agents, independent audits, and other additional safeguards.

    All organisations who receive funding from DFID have to provide evidence about the use of funds, including through annual audited statements. DFID’s Internal Audit Department provides further checks that programme funding reaches the intended recipients and reviews the work of all overseas offices every two years. This is supplemented by the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission on Aid Impact who provide independent scrutiny over the use of the aid budget.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what estimate her Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment she has made of which of her Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires. The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

    The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

  • Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Holly Lynch on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what provisions are in place to ensure that provision of court time for non-molestation orders between parents is dealt with as a matter of urgency.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The family court takes the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously and can list urgent applications for a non-molestation order for the same day.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many compensation orders were made by HM Courts and Tribunals Service against people convicted of modern slavery offences in each of the last five years; and how much compensation was awarded to victims of modern slavery related to such compensation orders in each of those years.

    Mike Penning

    The information requested can be found in the CJS Outcomes by Offence data tool at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2014

    Data for 2015 and 2016 will be published in due course.

    “

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many reparation orders have been made by HM Courts and Tribunals Service against people convicted of modern slavery offences under section 10 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; and how much compensation has been awarded to victims of modern slavery related to such reparation orders.

    Mike Penning

    The information requested can be found in the CJS Outcomes by Offence data tool at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2014

    Data for 2015 and 2016 will be published in due course.

    “

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many reparation orders have been made by HM Courts and Tribunals Service against people convicted of modern slavery offences in each of the last six months.

    Mike Penning

    The information requested can be found in the CJS Outcomes by Offence data tool at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2014

    Data for 2015 and 2016 will be published in due course.

    “

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to ensure (a) the efficiency of the transition to new courts of cases from courts that are planned for closure and (b) minimal adverse effect on those remaining courts.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Implementation of court closures has commenced and is expected to take place on a phased basis over the next two years. A schedule of anticipated closure dates has been published and can be accessed online at www.gov.uk/moj.

    Detailed implementation plans are being developed by each region of HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Local implementation groups will be established to oversee each closure. They will work in close cooperation with the judiciary where appropriate. The groups are responsible for ensuring that the transfer of work to receiving sites takes place efficiently and that effective service delivery is maintained at receiving sites throughout the process of court closure.

    “

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his speech to the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism on 15 March 2016, what legal changes he was referring to in that speech.

    Dominic Raab

    I refer the honourable member to the answer given to 31430 on 30th March 2016.

  • Charlotte Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Charlotte Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlotte Leslie on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what regulations govern parental consent for the recording of interviews with lone children in cases involving Cafcass.

    Caroline Dinenage

    There are no regulations governing parental consent for the recording of interviews with lone children in cases involving the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). The extent of the role and responsibilities of Cafcass officers is set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Practice Direction 16a, and this refers to the duty to “make such investigations as may be necessary”. Cafcass practitioners are aware that they must consider the best interests of the child in all aspects of their casework, including dealing with a request from a parent to record an interview.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to paragraph 8.18 of the Airports Commission Final Report, July 2015, what the estimated cost is of the tunnelling work required for the M25; and whether that cost would be incurred by the public purse or Heathrow Airport Limited.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Alongside its Final Report in July 2015, the Airports Commission published a range of supporting analysis and assessments. The Cost and Commercial Viability: Financial Modelling Input Costs Update report included estimated costs for the surface access proposals for each of the Commission’s three short-listed options for airport expansion.

    The report set out the estimated capital expenditure costs for the works associated with M25 tunnelling (south of junction 15) as £576m for the Heathrow Airport North West runway option and £864m for the Heathrow Airport Extended Northern runway option.

    The Airports Commission made clear in its Final Report (paragraph 16.33) that Government would need to agree the nature, scale and financing of the surface access transport improvements associated with expansion, and the Government has been clear that it expects the scheme promoter to meet the costs of any surface access proposals that are required as a direct result of airport expansion and from which they will directly benefit.