Category: Speeches

Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-02-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s guidance Overseas Business Risk – The Occupied Palestinian Territories, what advice they have given to local councils and other public bodies on (1) trade with businesses in the state of Israel, (2) trade with businesses in the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), (3) trade with Israeli companies that also work in the Israeli settlements in the OPTs, and (4) trade with any company from the UK that also has contracts in the Israeli settlements in the OPTs.

Lord Bridges of Headley

On 17 February, the Government published procurement guidance for public authorities that makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate and may be illegal outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. It is general guidance for public authorities on contracting with suppliers from WTO countries.

01/01/2023
Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the EU’s decision-making process is for (a) humanitarian and (b) military interventions; who is involved in those decision-making processes; and what the timetable for those processes is.

Mr David Lidington

The EU’s humanitarian assistance is administered primarily by the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO). Approved implementation partners submit project proposals to ECHO in response to its Humanitarian Implementation Plan. ECHO has a number of decision-making procedures available to it: the delegation procedure, where ECHO has delegated powers for emergency humanitarian work up to a limit of €3m and a maximum duration of three months); and the empowerment procedure, where the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection may take decisions relating to emergency operations up to €30m (maximum €10m for non-urgent decisions) for a maximum of six months. These decisions are subject to a consultation procedure within the Commission. Emergency decisions exceeding €10m and non-urgent decisions exceeding €2m (and all other decisions not covered by the delegated or empowerment procedures) require the approval of the Humanitarian Aid Committee (of representatives of all EU Member States). These decisions can be made by consensus or by voting, simple majority or Qualified Majority Voting, depending on the circumstances. The voting procedure has not been used in the Humanitarian Aid Committee as yet. The timeframe for the Commission’s approval will depend on the urgency of the humanitarian crisis.

EU military interventions fall under the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. Proposals are framed by Member States and the European External Action Service. A military intervention requires two Council Decisions: one to establish the mission; and, once planning is complete, another to launch the mission. All CSDP Council Decisions require unanimity. Timescales for military interventions depend on a range of factors, such as operational urgency and planning requirements.

There are other Commission-administered programmes, aside from those administered by ECHO, which have humanitarian aspects. Typically, under these programmes, the Commission is responsible for framing proposals with decision-making involving a committee of Member States.

01/01/2023
Danny Kinahan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2016-04-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on granting that Institute the power to be able to approve cancer drugs for use off-license.

George Freeman

Clinicians can prescribe any treatment, including an unlicensed product or a product not licensed for a particular indication, which they consider the best available medicine to meet the individual clinical needs of their patient, subject to their primary care organisation agreeing to fund this treatment.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) already produces Evidence Summaries which critically review the best available evidence for significant uses of unlicensed or off-label medicines. They help commissioners and clinicians to make evidence-based prioritisation, treatment and funding decisions where there are no clinically-appropriate licensed alternatives.

Ensuring that patients get timely access to any new treatment, including off-label medicines in new indications, is complex and the Department is committed to working with stakeholders including NICE, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the General Medical Council, patient and professional groups, and charities to co-ordinate activities and set plans in place that will make this easier. This includes work to look at more systematic inclusion of off-label uses of drugs in the British National Formulary and development of case studies looking at re-purposed medicines and their pathways from research results into clinical practice.

Alongside these, the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Act 2016 will, in due course, provide the National Health Service with a newly created database which will provide a mechanism for collecting and sharing information on innovative treatments including off-label drugs and medicines in development. Now that the Act has received Royal Assent the work to implement its provisions can begin.

01/01/2023
Jonathan Edwards – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Edwards on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times he has visited Wales in his official capacity since the last UK general election.

Mike Penning

Details of all ministerial meetings are published at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/moj-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings.

“

01/01/2023
Chris Elmore – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Elmore on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether his Department provide any alternative support for people who have been refused a Start-up loan due to their credit score.

Margot James

The Start Up Loans Company assess applications based on a range of factors including business viability and affordability. If an application does not meet the lending criteria an applicant will be signposted to a number of credit reference agencies to obtain a copy of their credit report. Additionally, they will be signposted to other lending organisations and charities that may be able to help them.

There are also other Government supported schemes to help people who want to set up and grow a business. The 39 Growth Hubs across England provide support to help businesses start-up and grow with the Business Support Helpline also providing information and guidance. In addition, individuals and small businesses can access the British Business Bank’s Business Finance Guide, which aims to ensure individuals understand the finance options available to them.

01/01/2023

Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2016-10-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much funding per head was received for childcare in (a) the Enfield North constituency, (b) Enfield and (c) London in the latest period for which figures are available.

Caroline Dinenage

Funding for the free early years entitlements is allocated on a local authority basis. In 2016-17, the relevant hourly funding rates per child for local authorities in London (including Enfield) were as follows:

Local authority	Three and four year old entitlement	Two year old entitlement
Enfield	£4.16	£5.28
Greenwich	£5.29	£6.07
Barking and Dagenham	£4.27	£5.28
Barnet	£4.80	£5.53
Bexley	£3.97	£5.28
Brent	£6.24	£5.53
Bromley	£4.10	£5.28
Croydon	£4.80	£5.28
Ealing	£5.95	£5.53
Harrow	£4.55	£5.53
Havering	£4.19	£5.28
Hillingdon	£5.16	£5.53
Hounslow	£3.98	£5.53
Kingston upon Thames	£3.93	£5.53
Merton	£4.10	£5.53
Redbridge	£4.34	£5.28
Richmond upon Thames	£3.79	£5.53
Sutton	£4.72	£5.53
Waltham Forest	£5.14	£5.28
City of London	£7.87	£7.08
Camden	£9.17	£6.07
Hackney	£7.50	£6.07
Hammersmith and Fulham	£6.62	£6.07
Islington	£8.41	£6.07
Kensington and Chelsea	£6.73	£6.07
Lambeth	£7.86	£6.07
Lewisham	£6.12	£6.07
Southwark	£8.64	£6.07
Tower Hamlets	£8.21	£6.07
Wandsworth	£5.19	£6.07
Westminster	£7.20	£6.07
Haringey	£5.63	£5.28
Newham	£5.17	£5.28

All funding rates for three and four year olds are exclusive of the Early Years Pupil Premium which is an additional funding stream for disadvantaged children.

We have recently consulted on a new early years national funding formula, and our proposed formula from 2017-18 can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/early-years-funding-changes-to-funding-for-3-and-4-year-olds

“

01/01/2023

Lucy Powell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Powell on 2016-10-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many children in receipt of free school meals dropped out of grammar schools in each selective and partially-selective education authority area in the most recent year for which data is available.

Nick Gibb

The information required to answer this question is not held and compiling it would be a very complex task which would incur disproportionate cost.

01/01/2023
Alex Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department has assessed the potential of liquid petroleum gas as a replacement for diesel in (a) passenger cars, (b) taxis, (c) HGVs, (d) vans and (e) public sector fleets.

Andrew Jones

As part of a consultation in 2014 on amendments to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) the department considered the potential benefits of biopropane in delivering GHG savings. In recognition of this, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation was subsequently amended to increase rewards for suppliers of that fuel from April 2015.

The department, working with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, have evaluated a range of options for tackling poor air quality; this formed the basis of the Government’s draft air quality plans that recently went to public consultation. Switching to LPG can provide air quality benefits but may not be easily deployed in all vehicle types.

As part of the department’s 2014 Clean Vehicle Technology Fund (CVTF) grant scheme, Birmingham City Council were awarded £500,000 to enable the conversion of 80 older black cabs from diesel to LPG which will help improve air quality on some of the most polluted roads. There is a possibility of funding through the current CVTF grant scheme being used to support further LPG conversions in other areas.

We are considering many competing priorities across Government as part of the Spending Review, including measures to tackle air quality pollutants and reduce other harmful emissions. The outcome of the Spending Review will be announced later in the autumn.

The department regularly meets with motor manufacturers and their representative body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). Discussions on how manufacturers can act to tackle poor air quality cover a range of measures.

01/01/2023

Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-01-07.

To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20564, how many people were charged with jury (a) intimidation and (b) tampering in each of the last five years.

Robert Buckland

Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 creates two offences:

S.51(1) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assists in an investigation of an offence or who is a witness or potential witness or juror or potential juror whilst an investigation or trial is in progress

S.51(2) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assisted in an investigation of an offence or who was a witness or juror after an investigation or trial has been concluded.

The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) identify the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced and reached a first hearing in the magistrates’ courts, rather than the number of defendants prosecuted. A single defendant may be prosecuted for multiple offences.

The number of offences charged under s.51(1) and s.51(2) are as follows:

		2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(1)	Intimidate a witness / juror	3,275	2,630	2,148	2,066	2,202
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(2)	Do an act which harmed a witness / juror	102	166	99	72	109
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(2)	Threaten a witness / juror	240	172	118	122	129

The proportion of CPS cases that result in a guilty plea has increased from 67.2% in 10/11 to 74.5% in 14/15 which means that there are fewer cases that are likely to be subject to the sorts of acts covered by s.51(1) during the course of the prosecution.

Also, s.51(1) covers intimidation of juror or potential jurors. The number of crown court trials have also been reducing over the period in question by 9.5%, again resulting in fewer cases where S.51(1) offences are likely to apply.

01/01/2023

Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-02-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent discussions he has had with ministers of the Scottish Government and women’s organisations on devolving competence for abortion legislation to Scotland.

David Mundell

I have discussed the issue of devolution of competence for abortion law in Scotland with representatives of several women’s organisations and I have a regular dialogue with the Scottish Government’s Deputy First Minister on all aspects of implementation of the Smith Agreement.

01/01/2023