Category: Speeches

  • Julian Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Julian Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Lewis on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the original projected in-service date was for the first Type 26 Global Combat Ship; and what the current projected in-service date is for first such ship.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    For equipment procurement programmes, the cost and schedule is set at the main investment decision, however, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) programme has not yet reached that stage.

    As is normal practice for equipment procurement programmes, we have developed a planning assumption that the first Type 26 GCS would come into service in 2022.

    We are working with industry to develop an optimised schedule for the Type 26 GCS programme to implement the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015. This work is ongoing and will inform the main investment decision.

  • John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Redwood on 2016-06-20.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which EU (a) legislative and (b) other proposals his Department is leading negotiations on for the Government in the Council of the EU.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Treasury is responsible for measures relating to the Economic and Financial Affairs Council. This includes economic policy, taxation issues, financial markets and capital movements, the EU budget, economic relations with countries outside the EU, and coordination of EU positions for international meetings such as the G20, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

    The Department provides Explanatory Memoranda to Parliament on any proposals defined by the terms of reference of the parliamentary EU scrutiny committees, which can be found online.

  • 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State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on people who have been subjected to (a) discriminatory treatment in their community as a result of their sexual orientation, transgender identity, mental or other disability, (b) ethnic, racial, religious inter-communal violence including genocide, (c) political violence at the hand of non-state actors, (d) male rape and sexual violence and (e) human trafficking.

    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 much the Child Maintenance Service has collected in charges since their introduction.

    Priti Patel

    Income received from fees and charges for the 2012 Child Maintenance Scheme is disclosed on page 136 of the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts for 2014/15. Up to 31st March 2015, £2.802 million has been collected.

  • Michael Tomlinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Michael Tomlinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michael Tomlinson on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent progress he has made on reducing the proportion of 16 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training.

    Nick Boles

    Figures for those not in education, employment or training (NEET) have fallen to a record low. The proportion of 16 to 24 year olds NEET in England between July and September has fallen compared to the same period last year. These figures show the excellent progress that is being made in providing opportunities for young people.

  • Melanie Onn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Melanie Onn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Melanie Onn on 2016-01-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many disabled social housing residents have moved out of their property in each year since 2009-10.

    Brandon Lewis

    The number of disabled social housing tenants (including housing association tenants) who have moved out of their property in each year since 2005-6 is shown in the attached table.

    These figures show that the number of social tenants who have moved has fluctuated over time, but the proportion of social renters who have moved has remained relatively constant.

    The reasons for these moves are not known although we expect some disabled social tenants will have moved to better (e.g. adapted) accommodation. Some will have moved from a different tenure i.e.from owner occupation or the private rented sector), while others will have moved from another social housing property.

  • Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the cost was to the public purse of indemnification of franchise partners to meet the costs for staff from Crown Post Offices who transferred into their employment in 2014 and 2015.

    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 you on this matter. A copy of her reply will be placed in the libraries of the House.

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether his Department has put incentives in place to encourage uptake of apprenticeship schemes from private companies.

    Nick Boles

    There have been over 2.4 million apprenticeship starts over the previous parliament, and 153,100 between August and October 2015, demonstrating the continued expansion of the apprenticeships programme.

    We are taking action to support and encourage the growth of apprenticeships in all sectors to meet our commitment to reaching 3 million starts by 2020. The UK-wide levy will be introduced in April 2017 for all employers in public and private sector with a pay bill of £3m or more, to help fund the increase in quantity and quality of apprenticeship training in England. All employers that hire apprentices will benefit from the levy.

    Our apprenticeship reforms are giving employers the opportunity to create new apprenticeship standards. More than 1300 employers are involved with 204 new standards published (of which over 60 are Higher and Degree Apprenticeships) and more than 150 are in development. So far there have been over 1,000 starts on the new standards.

    We are continuing to support small employers to hire apprentices through the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers (AGE), which provides eligible employers with a £1,500 grant per apprentice (aged 16 to 24) for up to five new apprentices currently. The AGE will continue to operate until the apprenticeships levy is introduced in April 2017. From April 2016, all employers will not be required to pay employer National Insurance contributions for apprentices under age of 25 on earnings up to the upper earnings limit.

  • Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping people who are fleeing domestic abuse.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    We understand the importance of ensuring that those people living in supported accommodation, including refuges, who are generally the most vulnerable members of our society, receive appropriate protections.

    Domestic Abuse is a devastating crime and the Government is determined to ensure that no victim is turned away from the support they need. The Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy set out our ambition to improve services for women suffering from domestic abuse, committing to a new Statement of Expectations to set out for the first time what we expect from local areas. To support this, we are launching a new two year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation based support and to help local areas take the steps they need to meet the National Statement.

    We have commissioned an evidence review of the supported housing sector which we expect to report shortly.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the report of Ofsted on its inspection of Audenshaw School Academy Trust which took place on 23 and 24 February 2016, if she will make an assessment of the effect on the students for whom pupil premium funding was intended of that funding being saved for a capital project.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    The conditions of grant for the pupil premium make clear that its purpose is to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. School leaders are best placed to decide how to spend the pupil premium in line with this policy and the needs of their pupils. Schools are not prevented from using the pupil premium to fund capital projects or from carrying over funding between years.

    The Department for Education supports schools to make evidence-based decisions through the work of the Education Endowment Foundation, established to identify and promote effective practice in raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The Department does not monitor how Academies and maintained schools spend the pupil premium but instead holds them to account for the outcomes of eligible pupils through the publication of data in performance tables and Ofsted inspection.

    Where concerns are raised about the performance of an academy then they are addressed by the Regional School Commissioner with responsibility for that area. The Department also takes seriously any concerns about the financial management of a school. We are aware of the findings of the Ofsted report on Audenshaw School relating to its use of the pupil premium, following an inspection in February 2016. We are also aware that the Hon. Member, Andrew Gwynne, has met the Regional Schools Commissioner for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, Vicky Beer, on a number of occasions to discuss his concerns about Audenshaw School Academy Trust. The Department has carefully reviewed all the information provided on this matter and has identified no grounds to take further action.