Category: Speeches

  • Lord Hoyle – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Lord Hoyle – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hoyle on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why Royal Air Force aircraft flying to Gibraltar cannot fly over Spain; what cost that adds to the flight; and what representations they have made to the government of Spain about the restriction.

    Lord Astor of Hever

    All requests to Spanish authorities by any nation for a military over flight that has Gibraltar as a departure or arrival airfield, is routinely denied by Spanish authorities. We make clear to the Spanish government that this is not the sort of arrangement close allies should have to manage.

    The military aircraft that routinely fly to Gibraltar are the Hercules C130 and C17 Globemaster. The difference in cost of a direct flight to Gibraltar from, for example, RAF Brize Norton and a route not overflying Spain is as follows.

    C130 – £2,600 each way
    C17 – £4,900 each way

    It should be noted that Spanish authorities are swift and cooperative in allowing our military aircraft to pass through Spanish airspace to any other destination. The refusal to use their airspace to access Gibraltar is an irritant that we have managed since the 1980s, and is set against an otherwise productive defence relationship between our two countries.

  • Andrew Percy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Andrew Percy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2014-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the baseline requirement is for wi-fi provision for all primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

    Elizabeth Truss

    The Department for Education has no baseline requirements for Wi-Fi provision in all schools. Headteachers manage their own budgets and are best placed to decide the extent of Wi-Fi provision. Where schools are built or rebuilt via the Department’s capital programmes, IT infrastructure including Wi-Fi is installed to a standard that supports 1:1 tablet use in the classroom.

  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the reports that Joseph Kony and senior members of the Lords Resistance Army are hiding in a Sudanese-controlled area of a disputed enclave bordering the Central African Republic.

    Baroness Warsi

    We have not been able to assess the veracity of reports that Joseph Kony and senior members of the Lords Resistance Army are hiding in a Sudanese-controlled area of a disputed enclave bordering the Central African Republic. However, we are aware of reports that local authorities in south-eastern Central African Republic (CAR) have been in contact with a contingent of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who have expressed an interest in surrendering.

    The British Government condemns in the strongest possible terms the atrocities carried out by the LRA. Although much reduced in numbers, the LRA remains an unprincipled, violent threat to civilians in the heart of Africa. The UK has consistently promoted a co-ordinated regional and international approach to defeating the LRA. We continue to encourage the UN and African Union to implement their counter-LRA strategies in full and bring Kony to justice.

  • Mr David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Mr David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr David Hanson on 2014-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many arrests were made for immigration offences as a result of information received from the public in each week in 2013; and how many resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) deportation.

    James Brokenshire

    The following table outlines the number of arrests made for immigration offences as a result of allegations received from the public in each week in 2013 and how many resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) removal.

    In order to align this answer with the method used for collating the data- "Information received from the public" has been interpreted as allegations and "deportation" has been referred to as removals.

    Week

    Arrests

    Prosecutions

    Removals

    Week 01

    15

    –

    10

    Week 02

    75

    –

    30

    Week 03

    35

    –

    15

    Week 04

    65

    –

    20

    Week 05

    60

    –

    20

    Week 06

    55

    –

    20

    Week 07

    75

    –

    30

    Week 08

    65

    –

    20

    Week 09

    60

    –

    25

    Week 10

    60

    –

    25

    Week 11

    75

    –

    25

    Week 12

    75

    –

    30

    Week 13

    45

    –

    20

    Week 14

    55

    *

    30

    Week 15

    55

    –

    30

    Week 16

    80

    –

    40

    Week 17

    90

    –

    55

    Week 18

    120

    *

    55

    Week 19

    145

    75

    Week 20

    95

    –

    50

    Week 21

    80

    *

    40

    Week 22

    85

    *

    35

    Week 23

    85

    5

    40

    Week 24

    90

    –

    45

    Week 25

    115

    –

    50

    Week 26

    215

    5

    95

    Week 27

    120

    –

    50

    Week 28

    155

    *

    65

    Week 29

    145

    –

    60

    Week 30

    100

    –

    35

    Week 31

    120

    *

    30

    Week 32

    80

    –

    20

    Week 33

    125

    –

    40

    Week 34

    85

    –

    25

    Week 35

    80

    –

    25

    Week 36

    90

    –

    25

    Week 37

    75

    –

    20

    Week 38

    75

    –

    20

    Week 39

    90

    –

    30

    Week 40

    75

    –

    20

    Week 41

    95

    –

    35

    Week 42

    80

    –

    15

    Week 43

    105

    –

    35

    Week 44

    55

    –

    20

    Week 45

    125

    –

    30

    Week 46

    120

    –

    20

    Week 47

    100

    –

    20

    Week 48

    95

    –

    5

    Week 49

    75

    –

    5

    Week 50

    95

    –

    5

    Week 51

    85

    –

    *

    Week 52

    20

    –

    –

    Week 53

    10

    –

    –

    Grand Total

    4,535

    15

    1,585

    The number of prosecutions and removals refers directly to the allegations received in that week, but may not have taken place within that timeframe.

  • Lord Clement-Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Clement-Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Clement-Jones on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have issued guidance as to whether members of either House of Parliament are, or should be, considered as Politically Exposed Persons for the purposes of United Kingdom financial regulation; and, if so, what guidance.

    Lord Deighton

    The UK’s Money Laundering Regulations 2007 define Politically Exposed Persons [PEPs]. UK Members of Parliament are not currently considered PEPs for UK purposes. However, revised global standards require that they are treated as PEPs.

    As similar definitions apply in other jurisdictions UK Parliamentarians are likely to be considered as PEPs in other jurisdictions. We are seeking a risk-based approach to the application of this requirement in negotiating the Fourth Money Laundering Directive.

    Treasury Ministers have approved industry guidance which further confirms that UK Parliamentarians are not PEPs for UK purposes. Some UK banks may apply enhanced due diligence to UK Parliamentarians in accordance with their own risk appetite, and as part of global policies and procedures.

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-03-24.

    To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the introduction of online voting in (a) Australia and (b) South Africa and its relevance to the UK.

    Mr Gary Streeter

    The Electoral Commission informs me that it monitors developments in voting technology in other countries, including the limited online voting pilot schemes which have so far taken place at an individual state level in Australia. South African overseas voters can go online to register to vote, but cannot actually vote online.

    The Commission will continue to take account of relevant experience from other comparable democracies as it develops a strategy for modernising voting at elections in the UK.

  • Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to promote human rights in North Korea.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    The UK is deeply concerned by reports of widespread and systematic state sanctioned human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), as I made clear in my Written Ministerial Statement following the publication of the UN Commission of Inquiry report into these violations. I have called publicly on the DPRK to take immediate steps to close political prison camps, to act on the Commission’s recommendations and to give full and unimpeded access to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant parts of the UN. I also made clear the UK’s commitment to ensuring the Commission’s findings were a beginning and not an end.

    Reflecting this commitment, the UK played an active role in ensuring a strong DPRK resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council. I lobbied personally on this issue during my visit to Geneva at the beginning of the Council. Since the resolution was passed we have continued to engage, supporting an informal briefing of the UN Security Council and pressing the DPRK during its recent Universal Periodic Review to respond to the Commission of Inquiry’s findings. In May, I met US Special Envoy on DPRK Human Rights, Robert King, to discuss next steps, and during a visit to Geneva next week I will have further discussions with Ambassador King and others.

  • Mr Nicholas Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Mr Nicholas Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Nicholas Brown on 2014-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the performance of Atos in carrying out medical assessments for personal independence payments; and if he will review this contract following the recent announcement on the Employment and Support Allowance Work Capability Assessment contract.

    Mike Penning

    The Department’s contracts with Atos Healthcare and Capita for the delivery of assessments for Personal Independence Payment include a full set of service level agreements setting out the Department’s expectations for service delivery, including quality of assessments and the number of days to provide advice to the Department. We are closely monitoring their progress against these and are taking action to drive up performance where this does not meet the required standards.

    In particular, for both providers, the end-to-end process for many claimants is taking significantly longer than originally anticipated. We are working with the providers to ensure that they are taking all necessary steps to improve performance, speed up the process and ensure claimants receive a satisfactory experience.

    The contracts include a range of remedies which allow the Department to take action on minor as well as more significant poor performance and ultimately the Department has the right to terminate the contract if there is sustained underperformance.

    The contracts for Personal Independence Payment assessments are entirely separate to the contract Atos Healthcare has for the delivery of assessments for Employment and Support Allowance and other benefits.

  • Henry Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Henry Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she will measure changes in the number of animals used in scientific procedures in the UK following publication of Working to reduce the use of animals in scientific research in July 2011.

    Norman Baker

    The Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain
    for 2013 will be published on 10 July 2014.
    I will be publishing a progress report on the Coalition Commitment "Working to
    reduce the use of animals in research" in early 2015.

  • Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Robertson on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the planned in-service date is for the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon; how many will be procured; and what estimate he has made of the (a) total programme and (b) unit cost.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The planned in-service date for the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) (FASGW(H)) is 2020. I am withholding the information relating to the number being procured as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.

    The total programme cost for FASGW(H) is £500 million and is a joint investment with the French Government. The UK’s contribution is £280 million (contract value excluding VAT). I am withholding information on the unit cost of FASGW(H) as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.

    I am also withholding all information on the FASGW (Light) as contract negotiations are ongoing and disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.