Category: Speeches

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent homelessness among victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals with positive Conclusive Grounds National Referral Mechanism decisions on their departure from the government-funded victim care contract.

    Lord Bates

    During the recovery and reflection period, support providers work with the victim of modern slavery to produce a detailed and tailored ‘move on plan’. Following a positive Conclusion Grounds decision, victims are entitled to a further 14 days of support, at which time the ‘move on plan’ assists the victim in their transition from the specialist service. The victim either returns to their home country or if they wish to stay and are eligible to do so move on to access mainstream support services in the UK. In addition, the Home Office considers extension requests for victims who need longer than 14 days to make the transition from the specialist service on a case-by-case basis.

    On leaving the Government-funded service that is provided under the victim care contract, victims who are EEA nationals may be able to exercise Treaty rights and remain lawfully in the UK on that basis but those who are not exercising such rights are encouraged to return home unless they are entitled to remain on other grounds. The Home Office also considers whether to grant Discretionary Leave to victims who are unable to exercise free movement rights where there are particularly compelling circumstances, they need to stay in the UK to pursue a compensation claim or to assist with police inquiries/investigations.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease in (a) England and (b) Wales applied for disability living allowance in each of the last five years.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Department does not hold such information about the disabling condition of people who have applied for Disability Living Allowance. Information on DLA claimants’ disabling condition is only held for those who have entitlement to the benefit.

    The information we have for the number of people claiming (i.e. entitled to) Disability Living Allowance, by main disabling condition and geography is published and available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/default.asp

    Guidance for users can be found at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/newuser.asp

    “

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the claim by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the proposal to stop collecting data on the wealthiest 1 per cent in the UK would lead to their wealth being underestimated.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government is not proposing to stop collecting data on the wealthiest 1 per cent in the UK.

    HM Revenue and Customs consulted on a proposal to cease producing statistics on personal wealth based on Inheritance Tax returns. The consultation suggested that the Office for National Statistics’ estimates of personal wealth, based on the household Wealth and Assets Survey, give a better indication of the overall distribution of wealth.

    The Government has not yet published a formal response to the consultation, which has now closed.

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of the inclusion of the Northallerton to Teesport line in the rail electrification scheme.

    Andrew Jones

    The Transpennine Route Upgrade is an ambitious and challenging programme which is due to be delivered by December 2022. There are currently no plans within this scope to electrify the line between Northallerton and Teesport. However, this does not preclude the thinking of future electrification as a further phase following the delivery of the current scope in 2022.

    I can confirm that the current assumption for services between Manchester and Middlesbrough is that these will operated by new bi-mode trains i.e. capable of diesel and electric operation. The new bi-mode will offer significant journey time savings for passengers on this route.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make it his policy to introduce a paternal allowance for people who do not qualify for statutory paternity pay; and if he will make a statement.

    Margot James

    The Government is taking a range of steps to improve provision for working parents . The eligibility rules for statutory paternity entitlements balance the needs of parents and the cost both to employers and to the taxpayer.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Answer of 16 November 2015 to Question 13604, on tenancy deposit schemes, what the total value was of the deposit money (a) given back to tenants and (b) withheld by landlords in each of the schemes for each of the years listed.

    Gavin Barwell

    The three Government approved Tenancy Deposit Schemes in England help ensure that tenants are treated fairly at the end of their tenancy through protecting deposits.

    A deposit can be protected in a custodial scheme where the deposit is paid (submitted) and held by the scheme until the end of the tenancy. The scheme will pay the deposit back (return) to the tenant if they have fulfilled all their obligations at the end of the tenancy. A deposit can also be protected in an insured scheme, where the landlord or agent holds the deposit and pays it back to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The deposit is not submitted to or returned by the scheme.

    The figures available for the number of deposits protected for tenants in Greater London since 2011, are set out in Table 1, and for deposits submitted and returned in Table 2.

    Table 1 – tenant’s deposits protected in Greater London

    Year

    Total number of deposits protected

    2011-12

    434,031

    2012-13

    398,635

    2013-14

    453,200

    2014-15

    499,098

    2015-16

    545,937

    Table 2 – tenant’s deposits submitted and returned in Greater London

    Year

    Number of deposits submitted

    Number of deposits returned

    2011-12

    74,202

    55,550

    2012-13

    77,709

    62,341

    2013-14

    82,613

    67,583

    2014-15

    88,465

    70,105

    2015-16

    90,849

    76,305

    The differences between the number of deposits submitted and returned are due to different lengths of tenancies, cases going through the dispute resolution process, and the protection of more deposits as the private rental market continues to grow.

    Overall, 98 per cent of all deposits protected in England since the launch of the tenancy deposit scheme in 2007, are returned to the tenant at the end of their tenancy.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2015-11-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the total operational cost of UK overseas military bases in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The operating costs of overseas bases are not held centrally and some cost elements are not immediately available. I have provided statistics for financial years 2011-12 and 2014-15, and will write to the hon. Member shortly to provide the rest of the information.

    Base

    Expenditure 2011-12 (£ million)

    2014-15 (£ million)

    Belize

    2

    Brunei (1)

    66

    Canada

    68

    Cyprus

    257

    250

    Diego Garcia

    3

    Germany

    907

    235

    Gibraltar

    71

    70

    Kenya

    41

    Nepal (2)

    11

    South Atlantic Islands

    99

    85

    Notes:

    (1) The majority of the expenditure is funded by the Sultanate of Brunei.

    (2) The costs shown are partially offset by income received from UK-delivered training.

    These figures represent the cost of operating our permanent bases overseas (including stock consumption, infrastructure, welfare and medical, leases, equipment support) and the cost of employment of the personnel based there.

    Decisions on the UK’s permanent military presence overseas will be taken in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. This Government is clear that there will be no reduction in Britain’s influence overseas, and Defence will continue to play a strong global role.

  • Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno on 2015-12-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many adults applying for a passport for the first time have failed to attend their scheduled personal interview in each year since such interviews were required.

    Lord Bates

    The numbers given reflect the number of interviews where the applicant failed to attend.

    An applicant is given three attempts to book and attend an interview. If they fail to attend 3 times then we can withdraw their application.

    From 2008 to 2009 information on failed interviews was held in each Interview Office and not collated or transformed into centrally held data.

    Financial Year

    Number of interviews where applicant did not attend

    2009-10

    4887

    2010-11

    4542

    2011-12

    3442

    2012-13

    4623

    2013-14

    3967

    2014-15

    4414
  • Stephen Hepburn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Stephen Hepburn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hepburn on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many people have been unemployed on a part-time basis in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 2008.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Israel regarding its use of administrative detention.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We remain concerned about Israel’s extensive use of administrative detention which, according to international law, should only be used when security makes this absolutely necessary rather than as routine practice, and as a preventative rather than a punitive measure. We continue to call on the Israeli authorities to comply with their obligations under international law and either charge or release detainees. We have raised these concerns with the Israeli authorities on many occasions, including at Foreign Minister, Attorney General and National Security Adviser levels. Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv most recently raised the matter of the use of administrative detention on 3 November 2015 with Israeli officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.