Tag: 2015

Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion Champion is taking to ensure (a) improved engagement and (b) increased promotion rates of under-represented groups.

Matthew Hancock

To govern modern Britain, the Civil Service needs to look and sound likemodern Britain. We need access to the broadest possible pool of talent, drawing on peoplefrom all backgrounds and all parts of the country.

We have published the Talent Action Plan which introduced the ‘Removing Barriers to Success’ programme’, overseen by the Diversity and Inclusion Champion, Sue Owen. We have introduced Shared Parental Leave, launched the Civil Service Job Share Finder and made sure all-male shortlists and selection panels for senior positions are by exception only. We are also increasing the number of places on our development programme aimed at disabled, BAME and LGB&T Civil Servants from 200 to 1000.

We are also implementing a number of initiatives to recruit individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds onto the Fast Stream and Fast Track Apprenticeship schemes, including internship programmes, schools and colleges mentoring and discovery days, work experience programmes and engagement with universities with a high representation of lower socio-economic students.

01/12/2022
Stephen Hammond – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and agencies overseen by his Department will be affected by that regulation; and what estimate he has made of the potential liability of his Department, its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed regulation.

Brandon Lewis

Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and our negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, NDPBs and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.

01/12/2022

Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, in which countries UK defence attachés are posted.

Mr Julian Brazier

There are resident Defence Attachés in the following countries:

Afghanistan – Kabul

Algeria – Algiers

Argentina – Buenos Aires

Australia – Canberra

Austria – Vienna

Bahrain – Manama

Estonia – Tallinn

Bangladesh – Dhaka

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Sarajevo

Brazil – Brasilia

Brunei – Bandar Seri Begawan

Burma – Rangoon

Canada – Ottawa

Chile – Santiago

China – Beijing

Colombia – Bogota

Croatia – Zagreb

Cyprus – Nicosia

Czech Republic – Prague

Denmark – Copenhagen

Egypt – Cairo

Ethiopia – Addis Ababa

France – Paris

Georgia – Tbilisi

Germany – Berlin

Ghana – Accra

Greece – Athens

India – New Delhi

Indonesia – Jakarta

Iraq – Baghdad

Ireland – Dublin

Israel – Tel Aviv

Italy – Rome

Jamaica – Kingston

Japan – Tokyo

Jordan – Amman

Kazakhstan – Astana

Kenya – Nairobi

Korea – Seoul

Kuwait – Kuwait City

Lebanon – Beirut

Libya – Tripoli

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Skopje

Malaysia – Kuala Lumpur

Mexico – Mexico City

Morocco – Rabat

Nepal – Kathmandu

Netherlands – The Hague

New Zealand – Wellington

Nigeria – Abuja

Norway – Oslo

Oman – Muscat

Pakistan – Islamabad

Poland – Warsaw

Qatar – Doha

Romania – Bucharest

Russia – Moscow

Saudi Arabia – Riyadh

Serbia – Belgrade

Sierra Leone – Freetown

Singapore – Singapore City

Somalia – Mogadishu

South Africa – Pretoria

South Sudan – Juba

Spain – Madrid

Sudan – Khartoum

Sweden – Stockholm

Thailand – Bangkok

Turkey – Ankara

Uganda – Kampala

Ukraine – Kyiv

United Arab Emirates – Abu Dhabi

United States of America – UK Mission to UN

United States of America – Washington

Uzbekistan – Tashkent

Vietnam – Hanoi

Yemen – Sana’a

Zimbabwe – Harare

There is Non-Resident Accreditation for a further 82 countries.

01/12/2022

Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 15 October 2015 to Question 11023, how many developers are developing proposals at each of the sites referred to in that Answer; what indicative electricity strike rates have been discussed with those developers; and what (a) generating capacity and (b) potential timescales have been discussed with each developer in each case.

Andrea Leadsom

I set out the position below. It is too soon to say what any strike price might be for these projects.

Site	Developer	Proposed generating capacity	Potential timescale for operation
Wylfa	Horizon	2.7 GW	mid-2020s
Oldbury	Horizon	2.7 GW	to be confirmed
Moorside	NuGen	3.6 GW	mid-2020s
Sizewell	EDF/CGN	3.2 GW	to be confirmed
Bradwell	EDF/CGN	to be confirmed	to be confirmed

01/12/2022

Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect on agricultural land of invasive non-native waterfowl.

George Eustice

A 2010 report produced by the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) (part funded by Defra) estimated the annual costs of non-native geese and swans to agriculture to be approximately £1.5 million. These costs included damage to crops due to grazing, trampling and reduction in soil quality, as well as costs of applying mitigation measures.

01/12/2022
Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Poulter on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent reports he has received about Iran testing a guided long-range ballistic missile.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

Reports that Iran carried out a ballistic missile test earlier this month are highly concerning. We believe such a test constitutes clearly a violation of Iran’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. We have taken appropriate action to bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council.

01/12/2022
Charlotte Leslie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlotte Leslie on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has had discussions with medical organisations on the implications of the recent European Court of Justice ruling against Ireland on the Working Time Directive.

Ben Gummer

The Department has commissioned Health Education England to take forward the recommendations of the task group led by Professor Sir Norman Williams into the impact of the European Working Time Directive on the training of junior doctors.

Health Education England has set up a specific working group to take this work forward, with membership including the Royal College of Surgeons and other stakeholders. The group is taking forward work on all the taskforce recommendations. This includes looking at the categorisation of training time and will consider the impact of the recent European Court of Justice ruling on Ireland. Health Education England will deliver an interim report to the Department in due course.

01/12/2022
Robert Neill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Neill on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which organisation provides the secretariat for the NICE Implementation Collaborative; what the Collaborative’s current priorities and work programmes are; what funding the Collaborative has received from the public purse since it was established; and if he will make a statement.

George Freeman

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has advised that it has provided the secretariat function for the NICE Implementation Collaborative (NIC) since January 2014 as part of a wider memorandum of understanding with NHS England. This year, the NIC agreed to undertake work in the following four areas, each of which was agreed because of their potential to generate learning about how to support uptake of NICE guidance:

– Improving patient outcomes for patients with non ST Elevation acute Coronary Syndromes;

– Improving Tuberculosis screening and data collection across health and social care;

– Identifying appropriate treatment pathways for people with moderate alcohol consumption across health and social care; and

– Increasing the knowledge base about the factors that increase use of technologies building on previous National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) research.

NHS England has responsibility for funding any project costs and projects liaise with NHS England to access these funds.

NHS England has advised that it provided £4,000 in 2014-15 and up to £10,000 in 2015-16.

01/12/2022
Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assistance the Government provides to internet service providers to ensure that images of child pornography online are identified and removed.

Mike Penning

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), an independent organisation funded primarily by the internet industry itself, acts as the UK reporting hotline for criminal content online, including child sexual abuse material hosted anywhere in the world. The IWF works closely with internet companies to remove or block indecent images of children where they appear. Since April 2014, the IWF has been able to search proactively for indecent images as well as acting on reports received from the public.

The Government has been working closely with the IWF and the internet companies as part of the WePROTECT initiative. In December 2014, the Prime Minister hosted the WePROTECT Summit in London which secured globally significant commitments from 50 governments and international organisations, 20 leading technology companies and 10 civil society organisations. These included: that the UK would work with UNICEF to establish a new Global Fund to Prevent Violence Against Children; to put in place the resources needed to better identify victims, track down criminals and remove child sexual abuse material from the internet; and, to forge strong partnerships with industry to develop technological solutions to protect children online. The UK and UAE governments are now preparing for a second summit, in Abu Dhabi this November, which will take forward these commitments.

01/12/2022
Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of current legislation regulating the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

Mike Penning

I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

01/12/2022