Category: Speeches

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Margaret Ferrier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ferrier on 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much his Department has spent on the transportation of nuclear warheads between RNAD Coulport and AWE Burghfield in each of the last three years.

    Harriett Baldwin

    All vehicles involved in the transportation of nuclear warheads are subject to a rigorous maintenance and inspection regime, carried out by highly skilled and experienced technicians. Inspections are made prior to each use, as well as six monthly safety and annual mandatory inspections.

    The costs of the transportation of nuclear warheads between RNAD Coulport and AWE Burghfield are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The security of the nuclear warhead convoy was assessed by Ministry of Defence Security Advisors in September 2016 as overall ‘satisfactory’, demonstrating that ‘performance meets the required policy standard’.

  • Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Poulter on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the expected average frequency of evening and weekend work by junior doctors under the proposed changes to junior doctors’ contracts.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS Employers’ evidence to the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration – “Reform of national contracts for consultant doctors and doctors and dentists in training”1 published in December 2014 during the hon. Member’s tenure as a Minister, included a profile of how the hours worked by doctors in training were spread across the week.

    We have evidence that hospital leaders consider the junior doctors’ contract to be a significant barrier to delivering more seven-day services. NHS Providers’ written evidence to the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration on contract reform for consultants and doctors and dentists in training2 stated that the junior doctor contract is still a significant source of barriers to seven day working and reform of the junior doctor contract is also required to support trusts to deliver more seven-day services. In particular, the pay banding system for junior doctors needs to be reviewed. There were concerns from employers that the banding system is too complicated, can create “perverse incentives” for junior doctors and hospital management, and means that providing more seven-day services is unfeasible, since more junior doctors would be working outside core hours and receive premiums under the current banding system. NHS Providers also believe that more hours in a day and more days of the week need to be defined as core hours, as the current arrangement does not support the delivery of more seven-day services or reflect the needs and expectations of today’s patients.

    Future working patterns are for individual employers to determine. The evidence on doctors’ working patterns has not altered since the hon. Member was a Minister for Health.

    1 http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/pay/medical-pay/ddrb-evidence—in-detail/consultants-and-junior-doctors-contract-reform-submission-of-evidence-to-the-ddrb

    2 http://www.nhsproviders.org/resource-library/written-evidence-ddrb-special-remit/

  • Emily Thornberry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Emily Thornberry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to paragraph 1.149 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, on what basis the total amount allocated to local authorities for funding temporary accommodation has been calculated.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Spending Review and Autumn Statement announced that funding of the Temporary Accommodation management fee will be devolved to local authorities from 2017/18, giving them more freedom and flexibility in how they use this funding. Current levels of funding will be maintained and, in addition, councils will receive £10 million a year more. The Department for Communities and Local Government will set out the precise detail of how the new funding will be distributed in 2016/17. The Department will work closely with local authorities and other partners to ensure that funding will be allocated in order to most effectively help councils tackle homelessness.

  • Helen Goodman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Helen Goodman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Goodman on 2016-01-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) arrests and (b) convictions for laundering money there were from which countries in each year between 2010 and 2015.

    Mike Penning

    The Government is committed to ensuring that the UK has a robust anti-money laundering regime. The National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing was published on 15 October 2015. This identified the threats and vulnerabilities we face in these areas, and an action plan will be published shortly, setting out the steps that we will take to address them.

    To lead our law enforcement response to this threat, in 2013 the Government created the Economic Crime Command (ECC) of the National Crime Agency (NCA). The ECC has established a new International Corruption Unit in the NCA to provide a single centre of excellence in this field.

    The Home Office collects data on arrests at offence group level, which includes groups such as ‘fraud and forgery’ and ‘theft and handling stolen goods’. Details on arrests for specific offences are not centrally collected.

    The number of people prosecuted, convicted and given a custodial sentence for money laundering offences, in England and Wales, from 2004 to 2014 (the latest data available), can be viewed on the Ministry of Justice website at the following link:

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

    Under “Criminal justice statistics outcomes by offence data tool” by selecting the offence: 38 Money laundering. The Ministry of Justice is unable to identify from centrally held data the country of origin of a defendant convicted of a money laundering offence or the country where the money originated from.

  • Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2016-02-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which organisations, projects, ministries of the Palestinian Authority and public services have received funding from his Department in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last three years.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided funding in 2013 to the Al Aqaba Village Council; Qalandia Local Council; the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Prime Minister’s Office; the PA Ministry of Justice through the Slynn Foundation; in 2014 to the Al-Yanoun Village Council; The Slynn Foundation (with Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law); and in 2015 to the Al Aqaba Village Council; The Palestinian Commission Against the Wall and Settlements and the Sinjel Municipality.

    We also provided funding to the PA Ministry of Justice from 2012-2014 for a sustainable transformation of the Ministry to become a high performing institution for rule of law within the OPTs and a beacon for other PA Ministries.

  • Fabian Hamilton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Fabian Hamilton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fabian Hamilton on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he received representations from the US military based at USAF Lakenheath before the recent use of USAF F-15s to kill an individual in Libya allegedly involved in the planning of terrorist acts; and whether he gave authorisation for such an act.

    Penny Mordaunt

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 29 February 2016 to Question 903769.

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps the Government plans to take to ensure institutions and organisations in receipt of public funds do not express a corporate opinion on the forthcoming EU referendum.

    John Penrose

    The rules on campaigning at the referendum are set out in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. There is no general restriction on institutions and organisations in receipt of public funds expressing a corporate opinion on the European Union Referendum. However, there are restrictions on organisations whose expenses are met wholly or mainly from public funds publishing certain material relating to the referendum in the final 28 days.

    As the independent regulator for charities in England and Wales, the Charity Commission published guidance for charities on 7 March 2016 regarding the forthcoming EU referendum. This clearly sets out the threshold necessary to justify any charitable activity on this specific issue.

  • Baroness Byford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Byford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Byford on 2016-05-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the 1,103 claims to the Flood Recovery Fund made by farmers in Cumbria, Northumberland, Lancashire, Yorkshire, County Durham and Greater Manchester, (1) who is responsible for approving those claims, (2) how many have been paid, and (3) what is the total value of those claims.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Whilst the Farming Recovery Fund is not competitive, farmers wishing to apply to the Fund have to submit a formal application with evidence to support their need for a grant to contribute to the restoration of farmland badly affected by Storms Desmond or Eva. Payments are made to farmers once the work has been carried out and a claim has been submitted.

    The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is responsible for determining the eligibility of Farming Recovery Fund applications, issuing grant funding agreements to eligible applicants, and receiving, processing and paying claims for costs incurred under those grant funding agreements.

    The RPA received 1,103 applications for a total value of grant of £11,429,194 by the closing dates for the scheme. As of 5 May 2016, 209 applications have been approved with a total value of £1,947,738. A further 20 applications, with a value of £265,440, have been either rejected as ineligible or withdrawn by the applicant.

    Of the projects approved, 29 have been completed and have submitted claims with a value of £202,268. 13 of these claims have been paid with a total value of £78,504.

  • John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Redwood on 2016-06-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what EU directives related to his Department’s responsibilities are awaiting transposition into UK law.

    Alun Cairns

    None.

  • Gareth Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Gareth Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Johnson on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Attorney General, how many people have applied for sentences to be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme in each of the last five years.

    Jeremy Wright

    The Government has committed to extending the scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme and is carefully considering its approach.

    The number of offenders who have had their sentence increased under the unduly lenient sentence scheme in each of the last five years is set out below.

    Year

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Offenders who have had their sentence increased by the Court of Appeal

    95

    62

    61

    106

    102

    Some cases attract multiple referrals from various sources and we do not record how many referrals each case has received. The total number of cases where requests were received by the Attorney General’s Office for sentences to be reviewed in each of the last five years is set out below.

    Year

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Total number of referrals received by the Attorney General’s Office for sentences to be reviewed under the scheme

    377

    435

    498

    674

    713

    The number of sentences referred to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme that were (a) increased and (b) kept the same in each of the last five years is set out below.

    Year

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Total number of sentences referred to the Court of Appeal

    117

    82

    70

    122

    136

    Total number of sentences that were increased

    95

    62

    61

    106

    102

    Total number of sentences that remained unchanged

    22

    20

    9

    16

    34

    The number of referrals under the unduly lenient sentence scheme that have been rejected due to falling outside the remit of the scheme in each of the last five years is set out below.

    Year

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Number of referrals that have been rejected due to the offence falling outside the remit of the scheme

    62

    75

    131

    194

    228

    Number of referrals received out of time

    3

    12

    9

    10

    16