Category: Speeches

  • Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Chapman on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many movements of nuclear material there have been on roads in Scotland in each of the last five years.

    Penny Mordaunt

    It is Ministry of Defence policy not to comment upon the frequency or routes used by nuclear material convoys, as to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice national security. Nuclear material convoy movements are kept to the minimum necessary to maintain the operational effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

  • Vernon Coaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Vernon Coaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Vernon Coaker on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of the early release of Stormont House legacy funding to support legacy inquests.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    Reform is essential if the legacy inquest system is to deliver effective outcomes for families. The current system was never designed to cope with a large number of highly complex and sometimes linked cases involving very sensitive information. I welcome the efforts of the Lord Chief Justice to review legacy inquests. If workable inquest reform plans come forward, serious consideration would be given to their potential merits.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Ouseley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to setting a limit to how long individuals can be held at immigration removal centres.

    Lord Bates

    The Government does not believe that a time limit on immigration detention would be appropriate. Home Office published policy is centred on a presumption in favour of liberty. Depriving someone of their liberty is subject to careful consideration and scrutiny, with appropriate account taken of individual circumstances. The introduction of an arbitrary time limit could lead to the release of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants even when their removal is imminent. Home Office guidance is clear that detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose. Published statistics show that, in the year to December 2015, over 90 per cent of individuals leaving detention had been detained for no longer than four months.

  • Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether public consultation was undertaken prior to the formation of Sustainability and Transformation Plan footprints.

    George Freeman

    The NHS Shared Planning Guidance (December 2015) asked each area to develop a proposed Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) footprint, engaging with local authorities and other partners on what this should look like.

    The footprints were reviewed by the national bodies with regard to: geography (including patient flow); scale; fit with footprints of existing change programmes; financial sustainability; and leadership capacity.

    STPs are not statutory entities but collective discussion fora which aim to bring together health and care leaders to support the delivery of improved health and care based on the needs of local populations.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Emily Thornberry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the Answer of 10 May 2016 to Question 36136, what additional financial contributions his Department has made to projects in support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in each of the last six years.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    In addition to the financial contribution the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has made directly to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, set out in answer to Question 36136, the FCO has supported a range of projects relating to the objectives of the treaty, these include conferences on issues related to the treaty, work in support of making progress towards a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, and support for the universal ratification and implementation of International Atomic Energy Agency verification standards in nuclear non-proliferation. These projects total:

    FY 10/11 = £139,084

    FY 11/12 = £416,884.08

    FY 12/13 = £580,895.57

    FY 13/14 = £313,106.97

    FY 14/15 = £325,297.80

    FY 15/16 = £222,158.92

  • Sarah Champion – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Champion – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Champion on 2016-07-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department has taken to raise awareness among public authorities of their statutory duty to notify her where they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

    Sarah Newton

    We published guidance on the Modern Slavery Act on GOV.UK and a circular was sent to all bodies who are subject to the duty. We will publish data on notifications received and carry out further awareness-raising activity later this year.

  • Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Pursglove on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps she is taking to increase opportunities for young people to access skills and vocational education.

    Justine Greening

    It is essential that everyone, irrespective of background and upbringing, has the opportunity to get the skills and training they need to get on in life. Tech levels and certificates in schools, Traineeships, Apprenticeships, National Colleges, Institutes of Technology and proposed technical education reforms set out in the Skills Plan, present real opportunities for people of all ages to acquire the high quality skills and vocational or technical education that employers demand. Opportunity Areas will be at the forefront of my Department’s drive to increase opportunities for young people to develop the skills they need to succeed.

  • Tania Mathias – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tania Mathias – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tania Mathias on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether British expatriates who pay income tax in the UK will be charged for medical treatment in the UK.

    Alistair Burt

    Since the United Kingdom has a residence based healthcare system, a person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK, including a British national expatriate, is chargeable for any National Health Service hospital services they receive during visits to the UK, unless an exemption category applies, as set out in Regulations. Therefore, entitlement to free NHS care is not linked to the payment of UK taxes.

    Being ordinarily resident in the UK means, in relation to British citizens, living here on a lawful, properly settled basis for the time being. A person can be ordinarily resident in more than one country at a time, depending on their individual circumstances.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2015-12-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people did not have a National Insurance number on 31 March 2015.

    Priti Patel

    Information is not available on how many people did not have a National Insurance Number (NINo) on 31 March 2015 because not everyone needs, or is entitled to a NINo.

    The majority of UK Nationals are allocated a NINo by HMRC when they approach age 16.

    DWP is responsible for allocating NINos to adults, which mainly affects adults entering the UK from abroad. A NINo is only allocated when an individual requires one for employment purposes, where the individual has a legal right to work in the UK, or if there is entitlement to a Social Security Benefit/ Tax Credit or in order to be awarded a Student Loan.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what working definition of imminence his Department uses in the application of article 51 of the UN Charter.

    Penny Mordaunt

    It has long been the position of successive UK Governments that "the inherent right of self-defence", as recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter, does not require a State to wait until an armed attack is actually under way before it can lawfully use force to alleviate the threat. A State may use force in anticipation of an armed attack where such an attack is imminent, provided that such force is both necessary and proportionate to averting the threat. The assessments would depend on the facts of each case, with consideration likely to include issues such as the nature and immediacy of the threat, the probability of an attack, its scale and effects and whether it can be prevented without force.