The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2016-05-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he makes of the proportion of women with endometriosis who do not receive the correct (a) diagnosis of and (b) treatment for that condition.
Jane Ellison
The information requested is not collected centrally.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kelvin Hopkins on 2016-07-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the emergency timetable for Southern Rail services to be introduced from 11 July 2016 is in breach of the level of planned service train cancellations set out in the Remedial Plan agreed between Govia Thameslink Railway and his Department in February 2016.
Claire Perry
Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .
The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Goodman on 2016-09-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what security-related sales and services the UK is (a) contracted to provide and (b) plans to provide to other countries in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018 and (iii) 2019.
Harriett Baldwin
The UK does not have commercial contracts with other countries for arms and security related sales and services. Through bilateral government-to-government arrangements the UK works closely with its international partners and allies to support the development of their defence and security capabilities across a broad range of areas.
To produce the information would involve collecting data from all branches and services involved in international defence engagement activity which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-11-18.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many persons interviewed by police, but not charged, have had their names released on the decision of a senior police officer because of the threat to life, detection of further crime, or because of public interest or confidence, in the last period for which figures are available.
Lord Bates
The Home Office does not hold this information. However, the decision to release names and/or details of suspects in a criminal investigation are decisions for the police, which are guided in making such decisions by the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Guidance on ‘Relationships with the media’.
A key principle of the guidance is that the police have a duty to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of information (including personal data) which must be balanced against the duty to be open and transparent whenever possible.
There are clearly great risks in naming suspects and the guidance makes clear that decisions should only be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless they have clearly identified circumstances to justify disclosure.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2015-12-10.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussion, if any, they have had with the government of Turkey and the UNHCR about urgent plans for the return home of Yazidi refugees, currently in a camp near Diyarbakir.
Baroness Verma
The UK Government is not aware of plans to return Yezidi refugees to their homes from Diyarbakir. The UK works with the Government of Turkey, the United Nations and the international community to support the rights of all minorities.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-01-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has received on the refusal of the Kurdistan Regional Government to pay tuition fees and living expenses to Kurd students studying in the UK; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Tobias Ellwood
We are aware of instances of non payment of fees by the Kurdistan Regional Government and that a number of students and universities have been affected by the current situation in the Middle East. The Government is continuing to work with Universities UK and the Higher Education International Unit to identify ways to enable students from the region to continue their studies in the UK.
A cross government body, the Responding to International Students Crisis Committee (RISC), has been established to look into issues faced by international students who have their studies disrupted due to crises in their home countries. The RISC provides a co-ordinated Government response on these issues so that affected parties know where to go for advice and guidance.
The Government is committed to ensuring that international students are looked after by our universities as part of our efforts to maintain the excellent reputation our higher education sector enjoys overseas. However there is no scope in the existing student support legislation for the Government to provide funding support for students in the UK. Students facing such difficulties should speak to their University.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-02-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what proportion of the objections received by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to the School Admissions Code by (a) all parties, (b) civil society organisations and (c) individuals in a school’s local area have not been upheld in each of the last five years.
Nick Gibb
Figures relating to all objections received by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator are published in the Chief Adjudicator’s annual report, which can be found on GOV.UK: www.gov.uk/government/publications/osa-annual-report
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-03-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to her Department’s Single departmental plan: 2015 to 2020, published in February 2016, what changes are expected in exposure to (a) nitrogen dioxide and (b) PM2.5 by 2017.
Rory Stewart
In December last year Defra published new plans setting out how the UK Government intends to improve air quality and meet the requirements of the ambient air quality Directive for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the shortest possible time. Our ambition, as set out in the plans, is for the UK to have some of the very best air quality in the world. Improving air quality in our towns and cities will reduce exposure for a large number of people and have a positive impact in reducing adverse health effects.
For all UK zones we assess compliance annually for a range of pollutants covered by European air quality directives, including PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide. All limit values, other than those for NO2, are currently met. The results are published in the annual Air Pollution in the UK compliance reports, which are made available on the UK-Air website: http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Offord on 2016-04-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department has issued on the procurement of ASP batons.
Mike Penning
Decisions about the procurement of equipment for the police, including batons, are for chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioners locally. The Home Office supports forces working together to improve the value for money obtained from procurement by agreeing common specifications and aggregating their purchasing power. Suitably trained Border Force staff may be issued with collapsible batons. The Home Office requires Border Force to procure those batons through a Crown Commercial Service contract. The batons supplied are not the ASP brand.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-05-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Answer of 19 April 2016 to Question 34024, whether the matter of family ties to the UK being considered only after substantive interview is in compliance with the Dublin Regulations.
James Brokenshire
Following an application for asylum in the UK, the first stage in the asylum process is the Screening process, which includes collection of fingerprints and bio data, travel history, health, summary of claim, security checks and family background. If at this first stage evidence emerges that an applicant’s asylum application should be more correctly dealt with by another European state in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, then, we would seek to transfer the applicant to the member state responsible for deciding the application.
It is, however, possible that evidence concerning responsibility of another state emerges after the screening process, in which case a request to another state to take responsibility under the Dublin Regulation can be made, providing that the Regulation’s time limits for making requests are met. In cases involving family unity Article 17(2) of the Regulation make special provision for requests to take responsibility to be made at any time before a first decision is made on the substance of the asylum claim.
For individuals who claim asylum in another EU member stage and who seek to rely on family connections to the UK as part of their application, application and compliance with the Dublin Regulation would be a matter for the individual state concerned.