Blog

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2016 to Question 26338, on EU grants and loans, which organisations have received grants from the £71 million European Social Fund monies.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    The European Social Fund provides support for young people aged 14-19 who were not in education, employment or training, or who were at risk of being so, for the period December 2013 to July 2015 (2007-2013 European Social Fund programme extended to 2015). This funding was awarded under contract following an open and competitive tendering process. The procurement process was administered by the Skills Funding Agency on behalf of the Education Funding Agency.

    The list of organisations contracted to deliver this provision can be found here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294667/SFA_ESF_Programme_Summary_-_14-19_NEET.pdf

    “

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2016 to Question 26338, on EU grants and loans, on what the £71 million European Social Fund monies have been spent.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    For the period December 2013 to July 2015 (2007-2013 European Social Fund programme extended to 2015), European Social Fund monies were used to support young people aged 14-19 who were not in education, employment or training or, who were at risk of being so to remain in or, re-engage in education, employment and training.

    Providers who were contracted to deliver support to young people were required to do so through delivery of activities designed to help young people gain a greater understanding of their own abilities, learning needs and the range of opportunities available with the establishment of clear progression routes for the young people concerned. Providers were also required to deliver innovative programmes to give young people experience of success in learning and, increase their commitment and motivation to achieve.

    The Skills Funding Agency which administered the funds on behalf of the Education Funding Agency is currently undertaking an evaluation of the above European Social Fund programme. The evaluation will be published later this year and will provide greater detail on the activities undertaken by young people.

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2016 to Question 26338, on EU grants and loans, what assessment she has made of the effect of the £71 million European Social Fund monies on the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training or who were at risk of being so in the UK.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    For the period December 2013 to July 2015 (2007-2013 European Social Fund programme extended to 2015), European Social Fund monies provided support for young people aged 14-19 who were not in education, employment or training or, who were at risk of being so.

    The Skills Funding Agency which administered the funds on behalf of the Education Funding Agency is currently undertaking an evaluation of the above European Social Fund programme. The evaluation will be published later this year and will provide greater detail on the impact of the provision for young people.

  • Gareth Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gareth Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Thomas on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when his Department last reviewed the arrangements at RAF Northolt on the safety of residents living under the flight path and nearby vicinity; and if he will make a statement.

    Mark Lancaster

    Military safety regulations mandate that a continual assessment of air safety risks are carried out. This provides not only internal assurance of operating procedures and air safety standards, but considers wider safety aspects such as the risks to individuals’ off-station.

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) actively manages air safety via this system, across all of its aerodromes, publishing any mitigated or permitted deviations via the individual stations’ Defence Aerodrome Manual.

    For MOD aerodromes that accept commercial/civilian flying activity, these processes have additional Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) oversight and assurance. Commercial operators are required to have similar safety management systems by the CAA, including those operating into RAF Northolt. The MOD and the CAA requires commercial operators to satisfy themselves that RAF Northolt is suitable for the safe operation of their particular aircraft.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he consulted (a) the National Security Council, (b) the Attorney General, (c) the Foreign Secretary and (d) other Cabinet colleagues on the decision to authorise the US to use RAF Lakenheath to launch airstrikes in Libya; and whether any of those bodies or people were required to give approval for that authorisation.

    Michael Fallon

    I am responsible for authorising the use of UK bases for operations of this nature. There is a long standing convention that whether the Attorney General has or has not advised on a matter it is not disclosed.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether any temporal or other limitations have been placed on his authorisation of the use by the US of RAF Lakenheath as a base for carrying out airstrikes in Libya.

    Michael Fallon

    My authorisation for the US to use UK bases to launch the airstrike against a Daesh training camp in Libya on 19 February 2016 was granted for that specific operation and for a limited period of time.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the UK was party to the US collateral damage assessment relating to airstrikes in Libya carried out by US forces operating from RAF Lakenheath; and whether that collateral damage assessment conformed to UK Rules of Engagement and the Targeting Directive.

    Michael Fallon

    I only grant permission to use UK bases to launch an airstrike after the Ministry of Defence has verified the legality of the operation and where we have assurances that collateral damage would be minimised.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has made an assessment of the relevance of the Final Report of the US Defense Science Board Task Force on Resilient Military Systems, published on 10 October 2012, to the security of Trident submarines.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Ministry of Defence are aware of the report in question which has not alerted us to anything new. We continue to place a high priority on assuring the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent and managing the associated risk. We continue to monitor and evaluate capabilities and technologies that could threaten the nuclear deterrent, including from cyber-attack. It would not be appropriate to go into specific detail of the steps taken to mitigate against these threats but note that the report points out that submarine platforms have isolation "designed into how they operate and fight" and that this isolation provides nuclear armed submarines with additional resilience over other nuclear weapon systems.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Written Statement of 3 March 2016, HCWS576, on Successor Submarine Assessment Phase, whether the sum of £642 million expenditure announced represents new expenditure over and above that originally budgeted for the Assessment Phase; whether that sum includes any money which has been the subject of earlier press announcements by his Department; and which projects of what value that sum has been allocated to fund.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    As announced in my Written Statement of 3 March 2016, HCWS576, the funding will supplement the Successor submarine programme Assessment Phase, taking that investment to £3.9 billion. The additional investment covers activity for Nuclear Propulsion systems, Facilities and Infrastructure, the Common Missile Compartment and submarine Design, including Design Assurance. All of the projects have previously been announced. I am withholding cost estimates as to release them would prejudice commercial interests.

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Farron on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 29 January 2016 to Question 24285, how many times (a) Brimstone missiles, (b) Hellfire missiles and (c) Paveway IV guided bombs were deployed against targets in (i) Iraq and (ii) Syria since 24 January 2016.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The table below shows the number and type of missiles fired from RAF aircraft in Iraq and Syria between 24 January 2016 and 9 March 2016.

    Munitions

    Iraq

    Syria

    Brimstone

    14

    14

    Hellfire

    7

    8

    Paveway IV

    166

    21