Category: Speeches

  • Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Aldous on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping to rehabilitate ex-offenders by providing them with stable accommodation and helping them find work.

    Andrew Selous

    Ensuring ex-offenders have suitable, stable accommodation and employment is vitally important in helping to break the cycle of reoffending.

    In recognition of the importance of suitable accommodation, the ability to source accommodation is one of the measures against which Community Rehabilitation Companies are assessed.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent discussions he has had about the future of the Knightsbridge Barracks.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Secretary of State for Defence holds regular reviews of the Ministry of Defence estate, including the wider London Estate, in the context of the emerging Estate Optimisation work.

    There have been no recent discussions between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about moving Hyde Park Barracks (located in Knightsbridge) to an alternative location in the Royal Parks.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-06-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of mechanisms for parliamentary oversight of the UK’s bilateral investment treaties.

    Anna Soubry

    Treaties, including bilateral investment treaties, that are subject to ratification, approval, acceptance, accession or the mutual notification of completion of procedures are laid before Parliament for scrutiny purposes for a period of 21 parliamentary sitting days under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Part 2: ratification of treaties) which commenced on 11 November 2010. This legislation provides that the UK cannot legally ratify or consent to be bound by a treaty laid under its provisions until the statutory 21 sitting day process has elapsed. During the 21 sitting days, hon Members and Select Committees have the chance to scrutinise the treaty provisions, ask questions, and potentially report. They may ask for extra time. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act does not guarantee a debate, but any request would have to be seriously considered. If Parliament debated and resolved that HMG “shall not ratify”, then the latter could not legally do so at that point.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what consideration she has given to the UNHCR Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention when deciding to narrow the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Mary Glindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Mary Glindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of child maintenance cases in the 1993 and 2003 legacy schemes which were in receipt of regular ongoing maintenance being paid to the non-resident or receiving parent and which were subject to forced closure did not migrate to the 2012 Child Maintenance Scheme.

    Priti Patel

    Child Support Agency (CSA) cases from the 1993 and 2003 schemes are not automatically transferred / migrated to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) 2012 Scheme. All existing CSA cases are being closed gradually as part of the CSA Case Closure process.

    Before an application can be made to the CMS, they must speak with the Child Maintenance Options Service where they are encouraged to make their own family based arrangement. Where this is not possible, or appropriate, they are able to apply to the CMS.

  • John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the level of change of housing benefit for tenants in supported accommodation as a result of changes to housing benefit announced in the Autumn Statement 2015.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The introduction of Local Housing Allowance limits to social sector tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit will only apply from April 2018 where new tenancies have been taken out or renewed after April 2016.

    The Department is working on the exact policy design details for tenants in supported accommodation.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department has conducted research on the total cost to the public purse of tax credits paid to private hire vehicle drivers in London in each of the last two financial years.

    Mr David Gauke

    No such research has been conducted.

  • Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how much the Post Office has spent refurbishing the premises of the Crown Post Office in Walworth Road since January 2010.

    George Freeman

    Post Office Limited runs and manages its directly managed Crown post offices. Arrangements for employees of these offices and changes to the Crown network are the operational responsibility of the Post Office.

    I have therefore asked Paula Vennells, the Chief Executive of Post Office Limited, to write to the hon Member on this matter. A copy of her reply will be placed in the libraries of the House.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will publish the impact assessment carried out by his Department’s board on the closure of St Paul’s Place, Sheffield; and what account his Department took of the diversity implications of that closure.

    Joseph Johnson

    The Department will shortly be publishing an Equality Impact Assessment on the proposal to close the office at St Paul’s Place, Sheffield, which will include an assessment of the diversity implications.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the contribution of the Minister of State in his Department, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, on 23 March 2016, Official Report, column 1657, what the value is of the funding that has been made available for the initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston Station; which agency is expected to lead that work; and when he expects that work to be completed.

    Claire Perry

    The design for HS2 is for one integrated HS2 station at Euston, which will be delivered in two stages (A and B1) to ensure a roll-out of passenger benefits in 2026 and again in 2033 as the Phase 1 and Phase 2 HS2 services are delivered​.

    Both the Department and Network Rail are committed to exploring how the ‘classic’ mainline station (Stage B2) might be integrated with the new HS2 station and potential Crossrail 2 station in the future, as part of a ‘masterplan’ for the Euston Station site. The Department, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd are currently working together to produce a plan to progress the initial feasibility and business case work needed for this project over the next two years, which will include the timing, resource required, and estimated cost.