Tag: 2016

  • Charlotte Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Charlotte Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlotte Leslie on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the risk of radicalisation of asylum claimants whose asylum claim has been refused but who cannot legally be deported because their destination country is deemed unsafe.

    James Brokenshire

    Those claiming asylum in the UK undergo a series of checks against immigration and police databases. Asylum claimants are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in serious criminality outside of the UK, this includes (but is not limited to) war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorism. Asylum claimants are also screened for indicators of national security interest and where identified further checks and investigations are undertaken.

    The Prevent statutory duty has made it a legal obligation for specified public bodies, including the police, local authorities, and health services, to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into, or supporting, terrorism. We would expect authorities in contact with asylum claimants to have due regard to the risk of radicalisation in the same way that they would any other safeguarding issue.

    No one who is at risk of serious harm in their country is expected to return there, but we do expect those who do not need our protection to return home voluntarily.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Emily Thornberry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many referrals were received by the Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit in each of the last five years; how many of those referrals were investigated by that unit in full; how many of those investigations led to a recommendation being made for web content to be removed; and on how many occasions web content was removed following such a recommendation.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) receive referrals from a number of sources including the public and law enforcement partners. The unit also self-generates referrals.

    All referrals are assessed by CTIRU against UK terrorism legislation (Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006). Those that breach this legislation are referred to industry for removal. If industry agrees that it breaches their terms and conditions, they remove it voluntarily.

    Referrals made to industry by CTIRU have led to over 150,000 pieces of terrorist-related material being removed to date from various online platforms. Overall, removals at the request of CTIRU have increased from around 60 items a month in 2010, when CTIRU was first established, to over 4000 a month in 2015.

    For reasons of national security we do not publically disclose the detailed allocation of funding for counter terrorism by capability.

  • Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Malcolm McDonald on 2016-04-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many personnel from Royal Navy 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group were involved in training Bahraini defence force personnel in January 2016; and what such training consisted of.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The UK enjoys close links with Bahrain, spanning 200 years, that reinforce our commitment to the Gulf region. While on a visit to the region with HMS ST ALBANS, in suppport of this relationship, two personnel from 43 Commando Royal Marines undertook weapon training with the Bahraini Defence Forces.

  • Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steven Paterson on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the oral contribution of the then Secretary of State for Defence of 6 November 2013, Official Report, column 291, whether the estimated build and commissioning costs of the two Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers remains within the £6.2bn budget.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The approved cost of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers is £6.2 billion, as announced by the previous Defence Secretary on 6 November 2013 (Official Report, column 251). Whilst there are cost pressures, the Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with Industry to drive the programme to remain within the approved cost.

    We expect the First of Class, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH, to be accepted from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance in 2017 and, as reported in the NAO’s Major Project Report 2015, the ship remains on schedule to enter service with the Royal Navy in February 2018. We remain on course to undertake Platform Sea Trials in 2017, commence Fixed Wing Flying Trials with the F35B Lightning II in 2018 and deliver Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) in 2020.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-07-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea in reducing conflict in border areas between those countries.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) gave on 29 June, to PQ 41027.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment his Department made before the announcement of 15 September 2016 of the extent of the potential security issue facing the development of Hinkley Point C.

    Jesse Norman

    Security matters are an integral part of reaching agreement on all new nuclear developments. Following my Rt hon Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement on 28 July 2016, the Government undertook a comprehensive review of the Hinkley Point C project; the review considered all component parts of the Hinkley deal. In the interest of security, we do not comment on security-specific matters.

  • 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 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what estimate his Department has made of the potential costs to (a) consumers and (b) the public purse of the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government is moving UK Green Investment Bank plc (GIB) into private ownership so it can continue operating in the same way it does now only funded with private capital rather than relying on taxpayers’ support. The detailed background and supporting case for this move was set out in the policy statement we published on 18 November.

    Decisions on the proposed sale are being taken in accordance with best practice to ensure all available options are properly examined in a detailed business case and that a robust valuation process is followed. We expect taxpayers to gain a receipt to the public purse from a majority sale of GIB, and to benefit from reduced public funding requirements in future.

  • David T. C. Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David T. C. Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David T. C. Davies on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many asylum seekers who claim to be under the age of 18 have undergone independent testing to determine their age in each of the last three years.

    James Brokenshire

    We publish statistics on cases where the claimant’s age has been disputed and a formal age assessment has been carried out. The table below shows the number of cases in each of the last 3 years.

    Asylum Claims by Year with a disputed age

    Year of Claim

    Totals

    2012

    337

    2013

    323

    2014

    318

    Data is taken from published statistics

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-july-to-september-2015/asylum

    “

  • Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mrs Anne Main on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many citizens of each other EU member state were convicted in the UK of (a) murder, (b) sexual offences and (c) serious violent crimes in each of the last 10 years.

    Andrew Selous

    The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database does not hold the nationality of offenders convicted of criminal offences in England and Wales. Obtaining this information would incur disproportionate cost.

    As announced in the Prime Minister’s speech on 8 February, my officials have been working closely with the Home Office to introduce a legal requirement for defendants appearing in court to provide their name, date of birth and nationality. This will enable earlier identification of foreign national offenders and help with the removals process.

  • Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jess Phillips on 2016-04-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 22 March 2016 to Question 30916, for what reasons related party transactions by academy trusts can be classified as irregular or improper by the Education Funding Agency.

    Edward Timpson

    Related party transactions by academy trusts can be classified as irregular or improper if they are not dealt with in accordance with Parliament’s intentions, legislation, the terms of the trust’s funding agreement, the Academies Financial Handbook or the trust’s internal procedures. This includes spending money other than for the purposes intended by Parliament or without the appropriate standards of conduct.

    Academy trusts operate under a robust accountability system which holds them to account for the results they achieve and their use of resources. This includes a requirement to publish audited accounts each year allowing the wider public the chance to hold academy trusts to account to help make sure that spend is securing better outcomes for pupils.

    The 26 related party transactions are irregular and noted in the table below (together with our findings from reviewing 2013/14 financial statements). It is important to note that irregular classification can occur where there is insufficient evidence to form an opinion.

    Concern type

    Summary of concern

    Number of breaches

    At cost

    The trust either confirmed that services from a related party were not provided at cost or there was insufficient evidence of this.

    5

    Off-payroll

    The trust confirmed that they were not compliant with HM Treasury’s off-payroll requirements for a senior member of staff.

    5

    Procurement

    The trust confirmed they did not follow an adequate procurement process for certain purchases from a related party.

    6

    Procurement issues/ recruitment of family

    The trust confirmed they did not follow an adequate procurement process for certain purchases from a familial related party.

    1

    Procurement/ at cost

    The trust confirmed they did not follow an adequate procurement process for certain purchases from a related party. The trust also either confirmed that services from a related party were not provided at cost or there was insufficient evidence of this.

    9