UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jamie Reed on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on Copeland Borough Council’s spending power of reforms to business rates announced in the Summer Budget 2015.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Government has announced reforms to the business rates retention scheme which mean that, by the end of this Parliament, local government will keep 100% of locally raised business rates and 100% of the growth generated by new development. Over the coming months we will be working with local government on the details of the scheme.

    Ahead of final decisions, it is too early to assess what the impact of the reforms will be on individual areas’ spending power.

  • Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Church Commissioners

    Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Church Commissioners

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, how many people involved in investigating allegations of child abuse made against George Bell consulted his papers and diaries in Lambeth Palace Library in the last three years.

    Mrs Caroline Spelman

    In 2013 and 2015 three staff members viewed various sections of the bishop’s personal papers held at Lambeth Palace Library on two separate occasions. has no record in the last three years of any of the individuals involved in these investigations making an application to view the papers and diaries of George Bell that are held in the Library.

    “

  • Lord Moynihan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Moynihan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Moynihan on 2016-03-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the budget for UK Anti-Doping for each of the last five years; how many specialists it employs; what contractual relationship it has with the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency to act as a secretariat for the International Olympic Committee Pre-Rio Anti-Doping Taskforce; and what assessment they have made of whether UK Anti-Doping has the resources necessary to fulfil its role effectively.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The UKAD budget (income and DCMS funding) was £7.2 million in 2011/12; £7.7 million in 2012/13; £7.5 million on 2013/14; and £7.5 million in 2014/15. The 2015/16 total budget is subject to finalised accounts. Its workforce is recruited based on each individual’s particular set of skills to help deliver the anti-doping programme effectively. UKAD’s role as secretariat to the Pre-Rio Anti-Doping Taskforce is through an agreement with the World Anti-Doping Agency. An additional full-time member of staff has been secured to carry out the task-force work so resources will not be diverted from UK Anti-Doping’s core programmes. As the honourable member will know, shocking allegations of doping in British sport emerged over the weekend, and UKAD’s role in investigating the matter. The Secretary of State for DCMS has ordered an urgent independent investigation into what action was taken when these allegations were first received and what more needs to be done to ensure that British sport remains clean. We intend to keep both houses fully informed of developments.

  • Lord Marlesford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Marlesford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the Highways Agency has made of the standard of cleanliness of the junction between the M25 motorway and the A12 trunk road.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), Highways England is responsible for litter clearance on all England’s motorways and a few selected A roads for specific operational reasons. Local authorities are responsible for litter on all local roads, including the vast majority A roads on the strategic road network.

    The M25 junction with the A12 trunk road (junction 28), is maintained by both Highways England and Transport for London. Transport for London is responsible for litter clearance of the A12 from junction 28 towards London and Brentwood Borough Council is responsible for Junction 28 towards Brentwood.

    A litter inspection of junction 28 was completed by Highways England on 21 April 2016 which identified ‘widespread distributions of litter with minor accumulations’ (Grade C under the EPA Code of Practice). This location was then cleared of litter on 26 April. The junction will continue to be regularly monitored and re-picked as the need arises.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-06-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government at what intervals female newborn babies born to mothers who have been victims of female genital mutilation will receive follow-up health and welfare checks.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is illegal, extremely harmful and it is child abuse. Girls born to mothers who have had FGM are offered the same range of newborn and infant health checks as offered to all families.

    In addition to the routine newborn and infant health checks offered to all families as part of the Healthy Child Programme, professionals have safeguarding responsibilities meaning that if they have any concerns about FGM they should take appropriate safeguarding actions, including sharing this with key professionals within the child’s life as part of local safeguarding procedures. In addition, any concerns about potential risk of FGM must be recorded within the child’s Red Book.

    A multi-agency approach is essential to protect girls from harm and as such, midwives, health visitors, general practitioners and school nurses amongst others are all responsible for the health and welfare of all children they see, irrespective of whether the mother has had FGM or not.

    The document Female Genital Mutilation Risk and Safeguarding Guidance for professionals (Department of Health, May 2016) provides information for health professionals on the specific issues frequently encountered when dealing with FGM. A copy of this document is attached.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Attorney General, if he will publish a list of all secondees to the Law Officers’ Departments from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what the role was of each of those secondees.

    Robert Buckland

    There have been no secondees from any consulting firm to the Attorney General’s Office, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service or Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate in the last three financial years.

    The Serious Fraud Office had one KPMG employee with them on secondment in 2015-16 covering a Principal Investigator role as an accountant on an operational case team.

  • Patrick Grady – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Patrick Grady – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patrick Grady on 2015-11-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her is taking to monitor the effectiveness of her Department’s aid spending in Nepal.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    Across our portfolio in Nepal, monitoring plans are in place for every programme. Our strong focus on results delivery ensures we are well placed to monitor the effectiveness of our programmes in delivering planned development outcomes. Regular monitoring activities include staff undertaking field visits on a mandatory basis to verify progress on the ground, with robust annual review processes in place. We also undertake monitoring approaches that involve the beneficiaries of our programmes having the opportunity to provide feedback on programmes, including public audits and participatory monitoring approaches.

    Since the earthquake, DFID Nepal has set up a regional office in Gorkha district to increase oversight of humanitarian and reconstruction programmes. The Risk Management Office also provides effective on-the-ground monitoring directly from the districts where our programmes are implemented.

    At the bilateral level, DFID Nepal is a core member of the Nepal Portfolio Performance Review led by the government with development partners on an annual and trimester basis.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-11-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his Saudi Arabian counterpart on trafficking of Yesidi girls from IS-controlled territories.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We continue to condemn in the strongest terms the atrocities committed by Daesh against all communities throughout the areas under its control. We are working closely with our international coalition partners to assist and protect civilians wherever we can.

    The human rights situation for many living in areas under Daesh control is gravely concerning, including for Yezidi women. We have received reports of the ordeal faced by these women and others abducted by Daesh including rape, sexual abuse, forced marriage, forced conversion and women being sold as slaves. Through the Department for International Development we are funding activities to protect vulnerable civilians including through legal assistance and support groups for women.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what dates since the Belfast Agreement in 1998 they have discussed with the government of the Republic of Ireland (1) human rights in the UK, and (2) human rights in the Republic of Ireland; who took part in those discussions; what were the issues discussed; and what were the various outcomes.

    Lord Dunlop

    The UK and Irish Governments meet regularly at ministerial and official level to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern. These include matters relating to human rights in Northern Ireland and Ireland as contained in the Belfast Agreement of 1998.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-02-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many enquiries regarding self-assessment originating from each constituency were handled by HM Revenue and Customs call centres in each of the last three tax years.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs does not hold data by constituency and regularly publishes general performance reports at Gov.uk.