Tag: 2016

  • Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Royston Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Royston Smith on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will hold discussions with on demand television providers on extending the provision of subtitles.

    Matt Hancock

    Yes. Furthermore, Ofcom, as the regulator for video on demand services, is currently consulting on the accessibility of on demand programme services and proposed steps to ensure their services are progressively made more accessible.

    We have requested an update from broadcasters, content providers and platform operators in Spring 2017 setting out their progress in increasing the provision of access services on video on demand services.

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on the use of the Community Trigger to tackle anti-social behaviour on a (a) national, (b) regional and (c) local authority level.

    Sarah Newton

    The Home Office does not collect or hold information on anti-social behaviour case reviews undertaken by local agencies using the Community Trigger process. The Government issued statutory guidance for frontline professionals in July 2014 on the use of powers to tackle anti-social behaviour introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

    This included information on the Community Trigger, including setting an appropriate threshold, publishing the procedure to be followed when making an application, and relevant data relating to use of the Trigger. We are currently reviewing the statutory guidance and we will publish revised guidance in due course if changes are required.

  • Henry Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Henry Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2016-01-07.

    To ask the Attorney General, what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to improve the number of successful prosecutions for human trafficking offences.

    Robert Buckland

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has issued guidance to strengthen prosecutions in support of the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The CPS continues to deliver joint training with the police. The increased awareness and emphasis on working with the police to build stronger cases should lead to an improvement in the number of successful prosecutions.

    The Director of Public Prosecutionsis hosting a summit with the Heads of the Prosecution Services in the UK and the Lord Advocate for Scotland in February 2016 to launch joint commitments to provide a more robust UK response to human trafficking and slavery.

  • David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2016 to Question 22835, in what months the biometric passport chip reading facilities were deactivated in (a) 2013, (b) 2014 and (c) 2015.

    James Brokenshire

    For the period for which figures are available, biometric chip reading facilities were deactivated 7 times in 2013 and these occurred during the months of February, March, May & June. In 2014 chip reading facilities were deactivated 3 times and these occurred during the months of September, October and December. In 2015, chip reading facilities were deactivated 3 times and occurred during the months of February, April, and June.

    These figures should be considered against the background of the overall volume of transactions which are currently running at over 100 million per year and each of the instances has been thoroughly investigated and we are satisfied that there has been no risk to the border as a result.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many recorded incidents there were of no custody nurses being available in police stations when required in each year since 2010.

    Mike Penning

    The provision and commissioning of police custody healthcare services including custody nurses is the responsibility of individual Police and Crime Commissioners, and healthcare staffing levels are an operational policing matter in conjunction with the custody healthcare service provider. Information on these issues is not held centrally by the Home Office.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-03-22.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of trends in the annual amount saved in ISA accounts across each income group in financial year (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13; and if he will make a statement.

    Harriett Baldwin

    ISA statistics are published on the National Archives website and GOV.UK website.

  • Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Carswell on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent representations he has made to the EU on the dumping of cheap Chinese steel in western European markets.

    Anna Soubry

    Responsibility for anti-dumping investigations and imposing anti-dumping measures against imports into the EU and the UK lies with the European Commission. These investigations are driven by requests from EU producers.

    The Government makes regular representations to the Commission concerning allegations of dumping of steel. My Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister pressed for more action on dumping of steel at European Council on 17 and 18 March. The government judges each anti-dumping case on its merits, based on the evidence presented by the Commission and on representations from interested parties, including producers, users and importers, but is strongly in favour of effective trade defences to tackle unfair trade practices where justified. We have voted in favour of anti-dumping measures on several steel products since July, including the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on reinforcing bar in January, an investigation for which we lobbied the Commission successfully, and on cold-rolled flat steel products in February.

    We have supported industry calls for higher duties on specific cases where this is justified by the evidence. For example, in the reinforcing bar case we have raised the steel industry’s concerns that the provisional duties were too low with the Commission. My Rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills spoke with Trade Commissioner Malmström about this and received assurances that the Commission will reconsider this during the definitive stage of the investigation, if industry can provide the necessary evidence.

    We also welcomed the opening of four new anti-dumping investigations involving steel products earlier this year.

    The government continues to push the Commission for faster, more effective action to deal with dumping of steel. This was one of the conclusions of the Extraordinary Competitiveness Council on Steel in November, a meeting which my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was instrumental in convening. In advance of the Commission’s energy-intensive industry stakeholder’s summit on 15 February – another key action from the Competitiveness Council – the government and several other EU Member States sent a joint letter to the Commission, pressing it to make full and timely use of all trade defence instruments to tackle unfair trade. I played an active role at this summit. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has also raised these issues in discussions with Commissioner Malmström, most recently at the OECD conference on the challenges facing the steel industry on 18 April. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual Property reiterated the need for faster and more effective action on dumping at the Competitiveness Council held on 29 February and the Presidency conclusions of that Council reflected this message. I did likewise at the European Steel Day on 21 April. Officials also have regular discussions about anti-dumping cases with Commission officials and officials from other EU Member States.

    The Government is also supporting a robust discussion of the issue of overcapacity through the EU’s ongoing dialogue with the Chinese and other governments, including at the OECD conference. My Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister has discussed this issue directly with President Xi and was told that China will take steps to reduce its overcapacity. My Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also raised it during his visit to China in February and My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills raised it with his counterpart in February. Similarly, my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised it during his visit to China in April.

  • William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    William Wragg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Wragg on 2016-06-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons the HM Treasury analysis: the long term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives did not include an assessment of the potential effect on the UK economy of a potential reduction in GDP in the EU.

    Mr David Gauke

    The main estimates in the HM Treasury analysis are based on the EU as it is today, without further reform. The total cost of leaving is likely to be higher. If the economic benefits of reform are realised this could increase UK GDP by up to a further 4% – which equates to £2,800 for every household in the UK. With the UK outside the EU these economic reforms would be less likely to happen. So the cost of exit in terms of the potential loss of GDP would be correspondingly greater.

  • Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Justin Tomlinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Tomlinson on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to ensure that produce labelling does not suggest that produce not from British farms is from such farms.

    George Eustice

    The Food Information to Consumers Regulation (No 1169/2011) requires labelling to adhere to the principle that the consumer should not be misled. Article 26(2) of the Regulation imposes an obligation on food business operators to include an indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a food if the failure to give that information might mislead an average consumer taking into account the label as a whole.

    The food business operator is responsible for ensuring that a brand name it uses does not mislead the consumer. It is for the relevant enforcement authorities to assess whether they consider that the use of a brand name is ambiguous or confusing for the consumer on an individual case basis.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how her Department plans to allocate £2.4 million for the security measures at vulnerable faith institutions in Action Against Hate: the UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime, published in July 2016; and if she will make a statement.

    Sarah Newton

    Places of worship that have been subject to, or are vulnerable to, hate crime attacks can bid for protective security measures such as CCTV cameras, perimeter fencing, access control equipment, locks and alarms. The criteria for the scheme and guidance on how to apply are published on Gov.UK.

    285 bids were received for this years scheme which closed on 4 October. Applications which meet the scheme criteria are assessed by an independent advisory panel which recommends those which should be funded. The panel will consider this years applications on 25 October 2016.