Category: Speeches

  • David Burrowes – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    David Burrowes – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Burrowes on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will support the establishment of a full, international, independent investigation by the UN into claims of genocide against the Rohingya in Burma.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    The UK deplores the treatment of the Rohingya community in Rakhine State, who are subject to persecution and denied the most basic rights. We welcome the work of the highly effective UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, who has shone a spotlight on violations against the Rohingya in Rakhine. She has not characterised the treatment of the Rohingya as genocide, and neither did the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide in his 4 November statement on Burma’s elections. However, any judgement on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. A UN investigation would require high level international support for which, we assess, there is little prospect of agreement at this stage. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, irrespective of whether or not they fit the definition of specific international crimes. I and other British Government Ministers take every appropriate opportunity, both publicly and in private, to press the Burmese authorities to take urgent steps to address the situation of the Rohingya. I did this with senior Burmese Ministers during my visit to Burma in July, when I travelled to Rakhine State for the second time. Most recently, I raised the issue with the Burmese Foreign Minister, Wunna Maung Lwin, in September in New York. After the 8 November elections, the UK will continue our efforts to address the serious ongoing human rights violations against the Rohingya in Rakhine State.

  • Justin Madders – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Justin Madders – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-12-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral contribution of 30 November 2015, Official Report, column 33, on the estimated number of patients who may have had a vital operation cancelled, how many patients who had such an operation cancelled had it rescheduled to a time within 24 hours of the original scheduled operation.

    Ben Gummer

    On 30 November, based on information provided by hospital trusts, NHS England estimated that around 3,000 procedures that were due to take place on 1 December 2015 were planned to be rescheduled. It has not collected information or estimated how many of these could not be rebooked for 1 December 2015 once the proposed industrial action was suspended. There has been no estimate of how many vital procedures that were cancelled were rescheduled within 24 hours. These are operational matters for hospital trusts.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-01-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Ministers in his Department have visited G4S Medway in the last five years.

    Andrew Selous

    In the last five years, available records show that three Ministers have visited Medway Secure Training Centre.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-02-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will meet the British Red Cross to discuss improvements in the existing processes for the reunion of refugees’ families.

    Lord Bates

    Home Office officials have already met with the British Red Cross to discuss improvements in the existing process for family reunion. We will continue to consult with them to ensure that migrants better understand the process and what is required of them.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of senior civil servants in his Department are based in London.

    Brandon Lewis

    97.6% of the Department’s senior civil servants are based in London.

  • Owen Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Owen Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Smith on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether transitional protection where entitlement is lower will begin as soon as tax credit recipients start migrating to universal credit.

    Priti Patel

    No-one already on existing benefits or Tax Credits whose circumstances remain the same will lose out in cash terms as a direct result of being moved on to Universal Credit. These claimants will be given transitional protection to avoid cash loss at the point of change.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what training is provided to teachers on working with children who have autism spectrum disorder.

    Edward Timpson

    The Department has contracted with the Autism Education Trust since 2011 to deliver autism training to education professionals. The Trust has now trained more than 90,000 education professionals. The Department is also funding work by the National Autistic Society to provide information and advice to parents and professionals on exclusions, and work to integrate into the Autism Education Trust training the learning from a previous project by Ambitious about Autism on strategies for supporting transition from school to college for students with autism.

    We have also supported Nasen’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Gateway (www.sendgateway.org.uk). This offers education professionals free, easy access to high quality information, resources and training for meeting the needs of children with SEND, including those with autism. In 2015-16, the Department also funded Nasen to develop a free universal offer of SEN Continuous Professional Development for teachers.

    The National College for Teaching and Leadership has produced a series of specialist online courses, one of which focuses on autism. The training materials are designed to support teachers in mainstream schools who want to improve their skills in teaching pupils with SEND. The training materials can be found at: www.education.gov.uk/lamb.

    In order to be awarded qualified teacher status, trainees must satisfy the Teachers’ Standards, which include a requirement that they have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND, and are able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them.

    Following Sir Andrew Carter’s independent review of the quality and effectiveness of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses, the Secretary of State appointed an independent working group made up of expert representatives from the sector to develop a framework of core ITT content. This includes considering Sir Andrew’s recommendations around the SEND content of the proposed framework. The working group is due to report to the Department soon. We will consider their recommendations carefully and determine how they should be taken forward.

  • Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2016-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the date and title is of all reports and assessments produced by her Department relating to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in each of the last three years; and if she will place those reports in the Library.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The CNC produces its own Annual Reports and periodic Business Strategies, along with other publications, which can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-nuclear-police-authority.

    “

  • Mark Hendrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Hendrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what activities have been undertaken by (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department at (i) Richmond House, London and (ii) Quarry House, Leeds to promote breastfeeding during World Breastfeeding Week 2016.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Government is committed to supporting breastfeeding through the Healthy Child Programme.

    No specific activities were undertaken in either Richmond House or Quarry House by Ministers or officials in relation to World Breastfeeding Week.

  • Lord Birt – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Birt – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Birt on 2016-10-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the conclusion by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) that there was no consistent evidence that the Troubled Families Programme had any significant or systematic impact on those families which took part in the programme, what evidence they have for the statement by the Communities Minister, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on 17 October that this programme has transformed the lives of thousands of families”; and what is their response to the NIESR report National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme.”

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The NIESR Impact Study was just one of 6 reports comprising the independent evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme. The evaluation found that the programme had many positive achievements. These include:

    • Families feeling more confident and optimistic about being able to cope in the future

    • Joining up local services for families by encouraging a single keyworker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems

    • Raising the quality and capacity of local data systems

    • Better joint working with partners such as Jobcentre Plus

    The data shows that nearly 120,000 of the families on this programme saw their lives improve – more children attending school, youth crime and anti-social behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 families, an adult holding down a job. The evaluation does not dispute this fact.

    Unsurprisingly, the ambitious and innovative impact study which used national administrative datasets to track changes in families circumstances over comparatively short time periods, was unable to specifically attribute positive outcomes achieved in employment, youth crime or school attendance to the Troubled Families Programme.

    This was because at that time the level of change achieved was not significantly different from that seen in a group of families not on the programme with whom comparisons were made. This is not the same, however, as saying that the evaluation shows family outcomes did not improve, as some have wrongly inferred.

    Of course, we will continue to review all evidence of how the programme is working, to learn from it and see if there’s more we can do to help families facing such multiple problems. In fact, we have already adapted the new programme in a number of ways, including extending the length of time over which family outcomes will be tracked – from 12 months to 5 years.