Blog

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, which charities her Department has funded to assist people affected by the Syria crisis since 2012.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    The UK has been at the forefront of the response to the crisis in Syria and the region. We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

    As part of the our response to the Syria Crisis, the UK is supporting a range of implementing partners working in Syria and neighbouring countries, including United Nations agencies, international Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), the Red Cross and other international organisations. NGO partners include CARE International, the Danish Refugee Council, Handicap International, the International Rescue Committee, Islamic Relief, Mercy Corps, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam, Save the Children and World Vision. Due to security reasons, some of our International NGO partners working in Syria have requested to remain undisclosed.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance the Government is providing to countries in West Africa to reduce the chances of Ebola returning to areas from which it has been eradicated.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    We are working closely with the Government of Sierra Leone, the World Health Organisation and other partners to reduce the risk of future outbreaks and prevent them from growing into epidemics.

    The UK has announced a two-year £240 million package of support to Sierra Leone’s long term recovery, which includes boosting capability to respond to future Ebola outbreaks and other emergencies. A key part of this joint strategy with the Government of Sierra Leone is the strengthening of health systems. Another component will boost capacity at district levels, empower youth and communities and support women and girls.. DFID will also support Liberia’s Health Pooled fund with £6 million to help ensure that its health system is resilient to future shocks.

    Beyond Sierra Leone and Liberia, DFID’s Regional Preparedness Programme prevents the transmission and spread of Ebola in at-risk countries in West Africa, focusing on prevention of a fourth country outbreakand strengthening national capacities to contain disease outbreaks.

    At the global level, the UK is supporting urgent reform of the World Health Organisation to ensure that it will respond effectively to future health emergencies and is also supporting their new Contingency Fund for Emergencies. At the Spending Review the Government announced the new Ross Fund to support the global fight against infectious diseases including Malaria and Ebola, which will be jointly administered with the Department of Health.

  • Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will publish all guidance it has issued to schools and colleges for the implementation of PREVENT strategy activities for all age groups.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Home Office published guidance on the Prevent statutory duty for specified authorities, including schools, in March 2015. In September 2015, the Home Office published Prevent duty guidance specifically for colleges and universities. The Department for Education issued advice for schools and childcare providers relating to the Prevent duty, which was published in July 2015. All of this guidance and advice is publicly available at the following website links:

    • Prevent duty guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance

    • Department for Education advice for schools and childcare providers on the Prevent duty: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf

  • Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what Action Fraud’s budget has been in each year of its existence; how many cases it has pursued in each such year; and what proportion of such cases involved cybercrime.

    Mike Penning

    Action Fraud is the national reporting point for fraud and also cyber crime. Crime reports received by Action Fraud are considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), both of which are operated by the City of London Police. Neither Action Fraud nor the NFIB are investigatory agencies. Crime reports are evaluated to assess the information available which could assist an investigation, and to identify links between seemingly unconnected incidents. Where there is enough evidence available and a viable lead, actionable intelligence packages are created by the NFIB and are sent to the appropriate police force to consider whether enforcement activity should take place. All crime reports are assessed against a number of variables, which may alter according to demand. It would be improper to comment on the procedure on which these decisions are made in the public domain.

    Action Fraud was rolled out to all police forces in April 2013; the data below includes crime reports and disseminations in England and Wales only. For the 12 months to 31 March 2015, Action Fraud received 230,399 reports of crime. Of these, 14,509 were cyber dependent crimes, namely, crimes which can only be committed using computers, computer networks or other forms of information communication technology – for example, hacking or malware offences. These crimes fall under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. For this period, the NFIB disseminated a total of 61,682 crimes to Forces and partner agencies to consider investigation. For the period April 2013 – March 2014 Action Fraud received 211,221 crime reports and of these, 21,686 were cyber dependent. For this period, the NFIB disseminated a total of 39,138 crimes to Forces and partner agencies to consider investigation.

    Historically the Action Fraud capability came into life in 2009 and was funded by the National Fraud Authority (NFA), which has since been closed, a proportion of the NFA’s total budget was used to fund the Action Fraud Capability and is as follows:

    • 2009/10 £5.7 million including a £1.4 million uplift to set up the service

    • 2010/11 £4.9 million

    • 2011/12 £6.68 million

    • 2012/13 £9.4 million

    Since the closure of the NFA in March 2014 Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have been funded by Home Office funding, Cabinet Office funding for Cyber Security and funding from the City of London Police core grant, and is as follows:

    • 2013/14 £11.11 million

    • 2014/15 £10.62 million

    • 2015/16 £11.03 million

  • Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on what basis Action Fraud determines which reported frauds to pursue for investigation; and whether the amount defrauded influences such decisions.

    Mike Penning

    Action Fraud is the national reporting point for fraud and also cyber crime. Crime reports received by Action Fraud are considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), both of which are operated by the City of London Police. Neither Action Fraud nor the NFIB are investigatory agencies. Crime reports are evaluated to assess the information available which could assist an investigation, and to identify links between seemingly unconnected incidents. Where there is enough evidence available and a viable lead, actionable intelligence packages are created by the NFIB and are sent to the appropriate police force to consider whether enforcement activity should take place. All crime reports are assessed against a number of variables, which may alter according to demand. It would be improper to comment on the procedure on which these decisions are made in the public domain.

    Action Fraud was rolled out to all police forces in April 2013; the data below includes crime reports and disseminations in England and Wales only. For the 12 months to 31 March 2015, Action Fraud received 230,399 reports of crime. Of these, 14,509 were cyber dependent crimes, namely, crimes which can only be committed using computers, computer networks or other forms of information communication technology – for example, hacking or malware offences. These crimes fall under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. For this period, the NFIB disseminated a total of 61,682 crimes to Forces and partner agencies to consider investigation. For the period April 2013 – March 2014 Action Fraud received 211,221 crime reports and of these, 21,686 were cyber dependent. For this period, the NFIB disseminated a total of 39,138 crimes to Forces and partner agencies to consider investigation.

    Historically the Action Fraud capability came into life in 2009 and was funded by the National Fraud Authority (NFA), which has since been closed, a proportion of the NFA’s total budget was used to fund the Action Fraud Capability and is as follows:

    • 2009/10 £5.7 million including a £1.4 million uplift to set up the service

    • 2010/11 £4.9 million

    • 2011/12 £6.68 million

    • 2012/13 £9.4 million

    Since the closure of the NFA in March 2014 Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have been funded by Home Office funding, Cabinet Office funding for Cyber Security and funding from the City of London Police core grant, and is as follows:

    • 2013/14 £11.11 million

    • 2014/15 £10.62 million

    • 2015/16 £11.03 million

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 7 December 2015 to Question 17662, if she will recompense postal applicants for a spousal visa whose application is not determined within eight weeks; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office does not intend to recompense all spousal visa applicants whose application was not determined within the 8 week postal service standard. The published service standard timeframes for spousal visa applications commences at the date of receipt, which is taken as the postal date marked on the application package and includes time taken for biometric enrolment.

    Spousal visa applications may be decided outside of normal service standards for a range of reasons including requests for further information from the applicant or when an application is complex. An application will be deemed complex when it falls to be considered under Human Rights consideration beyond the original spousal route applied for. The applicant is normally advised when their application falls outside published service standards.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 7 December 2015 to Question 17661, if she will recompense spousal visa applicants using the premium service but not receiving a determination on the day of application; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    All applicants who choose to use the premium service are offered a refund of the premium service fee if their applications cannot be determined due to unforeseen operational reasons on the day. However, if applicants do not arrive with the correct documentation and further checks are required that cannot be concluded on the day, then no recompense will be offered for the decision not being concluded on the day of the appointment.

  • Douglas Carswell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Douglas Carswell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Carswell on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make representations to the Essex Police and Crime Commissioner to (a) extend the consultation period for closures of police stations in Essex and (b) ensure frontline policing is not reduced following proposed police station closures.

    Mike Penning

    Decisions about the most effective use of available resources, including numbers of police stations and deployment of frontline resources, are rightly a matter for individual Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables, tailored to the needs of the local community. Data published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary shows that the proportion of frontline roles in Essex Police increased from 88% to 91% between March 2010 and 2015.

  • Michael Tomlinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Michael Tomlinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the range of waiting times is for the return of Disclosure and Barring Service documentation for applications in Dorset.

    Karen Bradley

    The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) measures its performance against a set of Published Service Standards (PSS). Performance data applying to certificates dispatched to people whose applications were made from a Dorset postcode between 1 December 2014 and 30 November 2015 are contained in the table below. Current performance levels reflect a number of challenges for Dorset Police, including delivering an upgraded IT system. The DBS has agreed a recovery plan with Dorset Police. This will mean additional staff are recruited to enable it to improve its disclosure turnaround times.

    Measure

    National Target

    Performance in Dorset

    All within 56 Calendar days

    95%

    82.7%

    All within 21 Calendar days

    85%

    75.7%

    All E-Bulk (or electronic applications) within 21 Calendar days

    88%

    77.9%

    All Paper within 21 Calendar days

    82%

    70.5%
  • Derek Thomas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Derek Thomas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Derek Thomas on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will assess the practicality of putting in place standard blocks to child pornography on the internet similar to those obtained by members of the BPI British Recorded Music Industry Ltd on material where access would cause commercial damage.

    Karen Bradley

    Reports of Indecent Images of Children (IIOC) can be made to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) which is an industry funded body. In 2014 the IWF processed 74,119 reports, of which 31,443 were confirmed as depicting illegal content. The IWF can proactively search the Internet for IIOC and this has vastly increased the number of webpages being taken down.

    100% of UK-hosted webpages confirmed by the IWF as containing IIOC were removed within four days, although most were taken down within two hours. 84% of webpages hosted outside the UK, and confirmed by the IWF as containing IIOC, were removed within 10 days. This material has been removed permanently, rather than simply having access to it blocked. The IWF also provides a list of webpages containing IIOC, primarily hosted outside the UK, to enable companies to block or filter them for their customers’ protection. This approach uses the same technology used by ISPs to block access to copyright-infringing websites.