Category: Speeches

Deidre Brock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Deidre Brock on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people were prevented from travelling to the UK by the authority to carry scheme in each month of its operation.

James Brokenshire

The Authority to Carry Scheme 2015, made under sections 22 and 23 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, entered into force on 31 March 2015. Our records indicate that for each full month of its operation to date the number of individuals in respect of whom a carrier was refused authority to carry to the UK has been as follows:

Month/Year	Number of individuals in respect of whom a carrier was refused authority to carry to the UK
April/15	67
May/15	56
June/15	77
July/15	77
August/15	80
September/15	90
October/15	106
November/15	92
December/15	89
January/16	69
February/16	61
March/16	79
April/16	82
May/16	107
	Total: 1,132

This is provisional management information that is subject to change. It has not been assured to the standard of Official Statistics.

Individuals liable to be subject of a refusal of authority to carry include those who have been excluded from the UK, who have been deported from the UK and those who are using an invalid travel document such as a lost, stolen or cancelled passport.

The details of the Scheme are published at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/authority-to-carry-scheme-2015

The operation of the Scheme is just one part of the Government’s multi-layered approach to border security.

This includes the Home Secretary’s power to excluded individuals whose presence in the UK she considers is not conducive to the public good or is justified on public security grounds; a visa regime where applicants are subject to checks before a visa is issued and applications may be refused; guidance to airlines to help them decide who is incorrectly documented and should not travel to the UK and checks on all passengers arriving at the border on scheduled services which can result in refusal of entry to the UK.

01/01/2023

Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what safety improvements have been undertaken on the A34 in the last five years.

Mr John Hayes

In the last five years Highways England has carried out twelve specific safety schemes on the A34.

The Gore Hill HGV restriction scheme started as a trial in 2010 and was made permanent in September 2011 because of its success in reducing accidents.

Between 2011 and 2012, Highways England completed four safety schemes, namely the Botley Northbound Merge Improvements, Whitchurch Directional Signing, Winnal Layby Improvement, and the Oxford Resurfacing Scheme. The layby and directional signs needed bringing up to current standards to improve safety.

Between 2014 and 2015, Highways England completed seven safety schemes, namely Kingsworthy Layby Improvement, Whitchurch Direction Signs Upgrade, A34/M3 Junction 9 Deer Vehicle Collisions Mitigation, A34 Passively Safe Signs, A34 Roadworker Safety, A34/M40 Junction 9 Wendlebury (Phase 2), and Didcot Drainage Maintenance. The drainage maintenance scheme was necessary to reduce the risk of future flooding between the A4130 Milton Interchange and the A4185 Chilton junction.

Numerous Renewals, Structures and Technology schemes have been delivered on the A34 in the past five years and these schemes have had an inherent safety aspect inbuilt.

01/01/2023
Anna Turley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anna Turley on 2016-10-14.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the timeframe to implement the Apprenticeship Levy; and what steps he is taking to ensure that businesses affected by the levy are given adequate time to make adjustments.

Mr David Gauke

From April 2017 the government will introduce a levy to fund the step change needed to achieve 3 million apprenticeship starts and an uplift in their quality by 2020. The systems required to implement this in time for April 2017 are on track and are being tested on a regular basis. This includes progress by both HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), with regards to the collection of the levy, and from the Skills Funding Agency who are building the digital accounts for employers to access levy funds.

The Department for Education has issued guidance for employers regarding the apprenticeship levy. Further guidance, confirming the funding policy, will be published shortly. HMRC has also issued guidance to software developers to ensure that employers’ payroll systems are ready for the apprenticeship levy and will publish further guidance for employers in December.

The government have been working with employers and training providers since the concept of the apprenticeship levy was introduced to ensure that it works for them. These conversations have played a major part in shaping how the apprenticeship levy will work and we will continue these discussions to assist employers and providers as they prepare for the introduction of the levy.

01/01/2023
Owen Thompson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2015-11-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the level of funding for the Big Lottery Fund.

David Mundell

The Scotland Office engages with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regularly on a range of important issues, including the Big Lottery Fund. The Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Lord Dunlop, met with the Big Lottery Fund in Edinburgh on 14 September.

01/01/2023
Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether her Department has made an assessment of the implications for its policies of the recommendations on improving digital accessibility for disabled people of the Extra Costs Commission, initiated by the disability charity Scope in July 2014.

Matt Hancock

Government is committed to increasing digital inclusion for all, and are taking steps to increase web accessibility for disabled people. The DCMS-led Council for Digital Inclusion includes members who represent the interests of disabled people. The Government has also published guidance on Gov.UK on making digital services accessible for Government departments, local authorities and anyone else who wants to prepare accessible communications.

01/01/2023
Tristram Hunt – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tristram Hunt on 2016-01-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many jobs in (a) her Department and (b) each of its non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies, non-ministerial departments, advisory bodies and other accountable statutory bodies (i) have been abolished or relocated from Stoke-on-Trent since 2010 and (ii) will be abolished in or relocated from Stoke-on-Trent by 2020.

Karen Bradley

The Department records actual staffing levels, but does not centrally record the number of jobs by location. Actual staffing levels for (a) the Department, between March 2010 and March 2015, have slightly reduced (less than 10 FTE¹) in Stoke-on-Trent. However, this does not necessarily mean that posts have been abolished or relocated as a consequence.

The Department is still planning its workforce requirements for 2020 in line with the Spending Review settlement; this level of detail is not yet known.

(b) For the Department’s executive non-departmental public bodies and statutory bodies, there have been no staff or offices based in Stoke-on-Trent during this period. The Department’s executive non-departmental Public Bodies are:

• the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

• the Gangmasters Licensing Authority;

• the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner;

• the Security Industry Authority; and

• the Disclosure and Barring Service

None of the Department’s Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs employ staff or have offices in Stoke-on-Trent.

¹Data Source: Data View, the Home Office’s single source of Office for National Statistics compliant monthly snapshot corporate human resources data Period Covered: Figures are as at 31 March each year.

Extraction Date: 1st April each year

Organisational Coverage: March-10 – Figures include core Home Office and the Executive Agencies; United Kingdom Border Agency, Identity and Passport Service and the Criminal Records Bureau March -15 – Figures include core Home Office (including Border Force, UK Visas & Immigration, Immigration En-forcement and Her Majesty’s Passport Office.) Employee Coverage: Data is based on headcount and FTE of all current paid and unpaid civil servants as at 31st March each year

01/01/2023
Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2016-02-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when HS2 Ltd plans to update its Register of Assurances and Undertakings to include agreements made after 23 September 2015.

Mr Robert Goodwill

The publication date for the next iteration of the draft register of Undertakings & Assurances will be 26^th February. This iteration will include all undertakings and assurances given up to and including 4 February 2016.

01/01/2023
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