Category: Speeches

  • Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Michelle Donelan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michelle Donelan on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policy on the award of Innovate UK Smart funding for Type 1 diabetes research of the outcome of the EU referendum.

    Joseph Johnson

    Innovate UK has simplified the way it provides support to innovative businesses – through a new sector focus with two broad competitions in each sector per year. It also runs open programmes available to all businesses irrespective of the technology or sector in which they operate. Innovate UK’s first such competition opened in June 2016 and applications are now being processed. In the last 5 years, through the former Smart programme, Innovate UK committed around £553,000 into research for Type 1 diabetes, although technologies have also been supported which relate to the management and prevention of Type 2 diabetes. The outcome of the EU referendum is not expected to impact on the delivery of these programmes.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department takes to ensure that the law on labelling foods that contain genetically modified products is complied with.

    Nicola Blackwood

    Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed requires that food derived from genetically modified (GM) sources must be labelled, regardless of the presence of detectable GM material in the final product or of the quantity of intentionally used GM ingredients.

    Businesses must take all reasonable precautions and exercise due diligence to ensure that the food they sell meets the requirements of the GM food and feed Regulation. The Food Standards Agency provides guidance on the Regulation on its website and local authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance with the labelling requirements set out in this Regulation.

  • Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-11-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much public funding has been spent by Magic Breakfast in each parliamentary constituency to date.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Magic Breakfast currently receive central government funding from a contract with the Department for Education. The objective of the project is to set up and run 184 breakfast clubs in schools where 35% or more children are eligible for free school meals, to ensure that children are fed and are at school on time and ready to learn. Magic Breakfast are required to develop plans to enable the breakfast clubs to be self-sustaining beyond the contract period. The project is being externally evaluated.

    The value of the contract is £1.087m, of which £518,523 has so far been paid. This is the only central government funding currently provided to Magic Breakfast in England. Any funding in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would be a matter for the relevant governments. The Department does not hold a breakdown of contract expenditure by parliamentary constituency.

  • Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders were given a fixed term recall for (a) breaching the terms of their licence, (b) committing a further offence, (c) a combination of breaching their licence and reoffending and (d) any other reason in the latest year for which information is available.

    Andrew Selous

    Any offender who is believed to have committed further offences whilst on licence is liable to be arrested and charged and, if convicted, given a further sentence. If the offence is serious, they can be remanded into custody until trial. Offenders on licence who are charged with further offences are also liable to be recalled, potentially to serve the rest of their sentence in prison, as they will be in breach of the requirement of their licence to be of good behaviour. If the offender is assessed as not presenting a risk of harm to the public they can be assessed as suitable for a shorter, fixed term recall. Those who have been charged with serious sexual or violent offences will not be considered suitable for a fixed term recall.

    In 2014, 7,486 determinate sentence offenders were given a fixed term recall for breaching one or more of their licence conditions. Of these, 3,166 had been charged with a further offence. We do not hold centrally data on the total number of these offenders who were subsequently convicted of these further offences.

  • Chris Stephens – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Chris Stephens – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Stephens on 2016-01-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what impact assessment his Department has carried out on the effects of reductions in the universal credit work allowance on employees of his Department.

    Priti Patel

    The impact of the work allowance change cannot be considered in isolation – it is part of a broader package of measures announced at the Summer Budget, such as the increase to the personal tax allowance and introduction of the national living wage, which strengthens incentives to find work and better paid jobs.

  • Lord Campbell of Pittenweem – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Lord Campbell of Pittenweem – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have drawn from the recent study of the UK’s future rotary wing requirements carried out by the Joint Helicopter Command.

    Earl Howe

    The 2015 Air Manoeuvre Future Capability Study reviewed and confirmed a number of major assumptions made about Battlefield Helicopter capabilities in the Rotary Wing Strategy of 2009. These were further tested through the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010 and in the Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study of 2011. These included:

    Attack Helicopter capability will be sustained through the Apache Capability Sustainment Programme until at least 2040.

    Rotary Wing Heavy Lift capability will be sustained through a Chinook Capability Sustainment Programme until at least 2040.

    An opportunity exists to review the means by which medium lift capabilities are delivered from the mid-2030s, following the out of service dates for Puma Mk 2 and Merlin Mk 3/4. This will be examined initially through a capability investigation that will also consider the broader utility of unmanned aviation.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what processes are in place, and what action they have taken, to ensure that EEA nationals who have made applications for discretionary leave to remain (DLR) as confirmed victims of human trafficking are not considered for administrative removal until a decision has been made about their application for DLR.

    Lord Bates

    The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

    The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

    No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

    Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of trafficking have brought civil claims against their traffickers in each of the last five years; how many such claims have resulted in awards for damages; and what the value of such awards was in such cases.

    Mike Penning

    The information requested is not held centrally.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the obligations upon member states of the EU include any duty to observe the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The EU is not itself a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Any agreement for the EU to accede would need to be agreed unanimously by all EU Member States (including the UK) and all other contracting parties to the ECHR.

    Our renegotiation deal reaffirmed that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union or domestic courts to rule on compliance with fundamental rights.

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the Answer of 26 April 2016 to Question 34503, if he will release a summary or redacted version of risk assessments carried out by the Cross-Government Working Group on RPAS.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Cross-Government Working Group on RPAS commissioned a piece of work, led by the Ministry of Defence, to analyse the potential use of drones for criminal purposes including the potential use of drones for terrorist purposes. This work is ongoing and being kept under review. I will place a redacted summary of the work to date in the Libraries of both Houses before the Summer Recess.