Blog

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the value was of (a) private and (b) public sector investment in the British steel industry in each of the last 10 years.

    Anna Soubry

    This information is not collected centrally. However, the following are examples of Government investments in the UK metals sector since 2008:

    • £8.2 million from the Regional Growth Fund towards a new Tata Steel Europe R&D Centre at Warwick University
    • Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative (AMSCI) – £12.7 million comprising £6.47 million grant and £6.25 million loan to a consortium of which Tata Steel Europe is a key partner, to develop the “Proving Factory” which specialises in the industrialisation and low-volume production of advanced propulsion systems to automotive standards.
    • AMSCI – CASCADE project and consortia of 11 companies led by Tata Steel – awarded grant of £4.6m in April 2015 for development of metal powders and processes for additive manufacturing
    • Over £100m in capital projects in universities (through the Research Partnership Investment Fund) in steel, composites, automotive and aerospace, which has leveraged funding from businesses such as Tata, Rolls Royce and JLR.
    • Over £100m in EPSRC’s grant programme in metals and alloys
    • Innovate UK have provided just under £4m in grants to Tata Steel and a further £2m (with £2m from EPSRC) for SPECIFIC – an innovation and knowledge centre at Swansea University.

    Information on private sector investment in the steel industry is not available from official sources.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the Government’s policy is on the granting of market economy status to China.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government believes it is important that World Trade Organisation members meet their international obligations. But we are also committed to tackling unfair trade and ensuring that the Commission continues to have the necessary tools available to do this.

    China’s 2001 Protocol of Accession to the WTO removes certain provisions after 15 years, so countries may need to alter the methodology for calculating dumping when conducting anti-dumping investigations involving China. In such an event, the EU would still be able to impose anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures against China, just as it does against Russia, the US and other market economies. We recognise there are real concerns about this. We are committed to discussing implementation of the Protocol’s requirements with our international partners.

    The European Commission is due to present its proposals in this area in the summer. Alongside its proposal, the Commission is expected to present a detailed assessment of the legal, economic and social impacts of this issue. It conducted a consultation earlier this year to collect evidence to inform its assessment and on possible measures to mitigate any adverse effects on EU industry. We welcome this and will examine the Commission’s proposal and impact assessment carefully before deciding our position.

  • Gavin Shuker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Gavin Shuker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Shuker on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps the Government is taking to improve access to further and higher education for young Muslims.

    Joseph Johnson

    We have recently introduced the Higher Education and Research Bill which, subject to the will of Parliament, will permit the introduction of a non-interest bearing alternative to student loans. This would be available to students of all faiths and none and will result in no financial advantage or disadvantage relative to the equivalent loan.

    The Government is committed to increasing the number of BME students in higher education by 20% by 2020 and the proportion of apprenticeship starts by people from BME backgrounds by 20% by 2020.

    We have also recently announced our intention to introduce a Transparency Duty on higher education institutions to publish more statistical information on the number of students who apply for places, receive offers and drop out from higher education institutions by ethnicity, gender and social background.

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage small businesses to apply for government contracts.

    Matthew Hancock

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stroud on 27 April UIN: 904721.

  • Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many pregnant women are currently held in detention under the Immigration Act 2014.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Home Office will not necessarily be aware that a woman is pregnant unless she chooses to make this known to us and a woman may not know herself that she is pregnant when she is detained. It may not always be appropriate for healthcare professionals to disclose information that the patient has asked not to be disclosed.

    As of 19 May 2016 there were no pregnant women detained under Immigration Act powers in an immigration removal centre or residential short-term holding facility, subject to these conditions.

  • Lord Pearson of Rannoch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pearson of Rannoch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the proportions, by value, of British exports of goods to EU member states invoiced in (1) sterling, (2) US dollars, and (3) euro, in 2015.

    Lord Price

    The data requested is not available. HM Revenue and Customs collects data on the currency of invoice for trade with non-EU countries but businesses are not required to declare the currency of invoicing for trade with EU member states.

  • Baroness Thomas of Winchester – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Thomas of Winchester – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Thomas of Winchester on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to protect and enhance the amount of local housing allowance paid by local authorities in England in order to meet the accommodation and support needs of persons with learning disabilities.

    Lord Freud

    A Written Ministerial Statement was published on 1 March 2016 to announce that the effect of the Local Housing Allowance cap for those living in social sector supported housing, including those with learning disabilities, would be deferred by a year, pending the outcome of a review.

    We have done this because we understand the importance of ensuring that both those living in supported housing and those who provide this type of accommodation receive appropriate protections. This is why we are awaiting the outcome of a “Supported Accommodation” research project and subsequent policy review, to ensure support is focused on the most vulnerable and appropriate groups are safeguarded

  • Baroness Thomas of Winchester – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Thomas of Winchester – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Thomas of Winchester on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Altmann on 4 May (HL Deb, col 1503), what rate of support claimants of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment will be guaranteed to receive if they cannot walk safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and in a reasonable time period, (1) for more than 20 metres, or (2) for more than 50 metres.

    Baroness Altmann

    Claimants who can stand and then move no more than 20 metres will receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP. Claimants who can stand and then move more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres are guaranteed to receive at least the standard rate of the mobility component. In some cases, depending on the individual’s circumstances, they may receive the enhanced rate If they score points from the other mobility activity.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the purpose of the concept of parity of esteem as applied to Northern Ireland; and why those standards of esteem are not applied in the rest of the UK.

    Lord Dunlop

    ‘Parity of esteem’ is expressed and defined in the 1998 Belfast Agreement in relation to people living in Northern Ireland. That Agreement was reached following talks between the then UK Labour Government, several of Northern Ireland’s political parties – including the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Fein and others – and the then Irish Government. This Government sees parity of esteem as treating everybody in Northern Ireland fairly, with equal respect, just as it is committed to treating people fairly and with equal respect wherever they live in the United Kingdom.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the concept of parity of esteem as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998 applies to security service people who have a residence elsewhere but are, or were, resident in Northern Ireland for a period.

    Lord Dunlop

    This Government understands the concept of parity of esteem, as set out in the 1998 Belfast Agreement, as placing a general obligation on the UK Government to treat people of different traditions in Northern Ireland fairly and with equal respect. In the Agreement it is clearly expressed and defined in relation to people living in Northern Ireland.

    As a general obligation there is no definition of particular circumstances in which it does or does not apply.

    As I have set out in previous replies to the Noble Lord, this Government is firm in its commitment to the protection of people against any form of discrimination, and the promotion of opportunity for all, across the whole of our United Kingdom.

    In respect of the Noble Lord’s question about those who might march wearing army uniforms but who are not members of an army, the concept of parity of esteem clearly does not absolve people from upholding the law. This Government has made clear many times that we will never accept any form of equivalence between members of the security forces and those who engage in terrorism or other forms of paramilitary activity.