UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alistair Carmichael – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alistair Carmichael on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have delayed providing information to the Intelligence and Security Committee in order to make a determination as to whether to share that information as set out in Schedule 1 to the Justice and Security Act 2013.

    Mr Ben Wallace

    The Home Office is unable to find any record of having declined to disclose information to the Intelligence and Security Committee under Schedule 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. The Home Office is unable to find any record of having delayed providing information to the Intelligence and Security Committee in order to make a determination as to whether to share that information, as set out in Schedule 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-01-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what revenue has accrued to the Exchequer from the use of fixed odds betting terminals in each of the last four complete financial years; and if he will make a statement.

    Damian Hinds

    Total Machine Games Duty (MGD) receipts for the years ending 31 March 2015 and 2014 were £562 million and £502 million. Total Amusement Machine Licence Duty receipts for the years ending 31 March 2013 and 2012 were £151million and £219 million.

    Receipts from fixed odds betting terminals are not separately identified in the figures published in HMRC’s Tax & Duty bulletin. The bulletin can be found here:

    https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/TaxAndDutyBulletins.aspx

    “

  • Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Warner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Warner on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 20 January (HL5278), what are the equivalent figures for public spending on adult social care; and why percentages have declined since 2009/10.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is usually reported on a United Kingdom basis.

    The Department is responsible for reporting on adult social care spend in England and is not in a position to provide equivalent spend figures for adult social care by the devolved administrations.

    Spend on adult social care in England, including National Health Service transfers, as a percentage of UK GDP is set out in the table below.

    Adult Social Care (ASC) £bn

    UK GDP £bn

    Percentage of GDP Spent on ASC

    2009-10

    15.7

    1503.6

    1.05

    2010-11

    16.1

    1574.9

    1.02

    2011-12

    15.6

    1629.1

    0.95

    2012-13

    15.4

    1678.9

    0.91

    2013-14

    15.5

    1756.2

    0.88

    2014-15

    15.5

    1830.4

    0.85

    Table notes:

    1. Spend information for 2009-10 onwards is based upon Department for Communities and Local Government outturn data.
    2. 2014-15 figures are from Health & Social Care Information Centre Adult Social Care Finance Return data. This data collection is new for 2014-15 and is not comparable to historical spend figures.
    3. GDP figures sourced from HM Treasury 23 December 2015

    Ultimately it is a local decision on how much to spend on adult social care. In order to get the deficit under control, local government has had to find its share of the savings.

    Councils have risen to the challenge of achieving savings whilst setting balanced budgets, keeping council tax low and maintaining satisfaction in services. Many grant ring fences have been removed over the last five years, giving councils more flexibility to meet local priorities as they see fit.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans she has to review the policy limiting the reuniting of refugee families to children under the age of 18 and partners of refugees who have been granted asylum in the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    Our refugee family reunion policy allows immediate family members of a person in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection status – that is a spouse or partner and children under the age of 18, who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin – to reunite with them in the UK. We have no plans to widen these criteria, which are fully compliant with our international obligations and enable thousands of people each year to be reunited with their families in the UK.

    However, where a family reunion application fails under the Immigration Rules, the Entry Clearance Officer must also consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting a visa outside the Rules. This caters for extended family members in exceptional circumstances.

    We are currently reviewing our process for dealing with family reunion applications in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As part of that review we are working closely with the British Red Cross. We have committed to improving our guidance to caseworkers and redesigning the application form to ensure that applicants better understand the process and what is required of them.

  • Robin Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Robin Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robin Walker on 2016-04-15.

    To ask the Prime Minister, what criteria the Government uses to decide whether to carry out targeted strikes against individuals in Syria.

    Mr David Cameron

    Following the House of Commons vote on 2 December 2015, the UK joined a global coalition taking military action to tackle the threat posed by Daesh in Syria, as well as Iraq. The action in which the UK is participating includes targeted strikes against members of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, as well as targeting Daesh’s infrastructure, deployed forces and sources of revenue. The Coalition’s ongoing action, including the role of the UK, is lawful in Syria under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi Government. Coalition action has the support of the international community as reflected in UN Security Council resolution 2249(2015), and the support of the House of Commons.

    My comments to the then right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on 26 September 2014, Official Report, column 1265, and the Oral Statement I gave on 7 September 2015, Official Report, column 26, about taking lawful action in response to an identified, direct and imminent threat to the UK would still apply, of course, to individuals in Syria and Iraq who are not members of Daesh. The Government reserves the right to take lawful action to address an identified, direct and imminent threat to the UK and report to Parliament after it has done so.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-05-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what guarantees she has received that UK development aid for Ethiopia is not used for military or security purposes or the so-called villagisation dispersal programme; and what safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid to Ethiopia is used only for agreed development purposes.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    All DFID aid in Ethiopia is administered through specific programmes, each with a strong set of controls, high standard monitoring and strong DFID oversight. Aid in Ethiopia is distributed through a number of channels. Where a programme is administered using government systems a standard fiduciary risk assessment evaluating the national public financial management system is mandatory. As with all aid spending, strong checks and balances and regular monitoring ensure that aid is used for the purposes intended.

    UK aid in Ethiopia has contributed to the remarkable developmental gains the country has made over the past decade. The UK has helped reduce poverty and child mortality in Ethiopia by a quarter and put four more million children in primary school.

  • Gordon Henderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Gordon Henderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Henderson on 2016-07-11.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Government plans to allow all British citizens who live abroad but pay income tax in the UK to vote in UK elections regardless of the length of time they have been resident abroad.

    Chris Skidmore

    As set out in our manifesto, the Government will bring forward legislation to remove the outdated 15 year time limit on overseas voting rights.

    The Government’s proposals will make no change to the extent to which taxation is the basis for enfranchisement in the UK.

  • 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 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people have been deported to (a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) China, (d) Nigeria, (e) Uganda and (f) Iran in the latest period for which figures are available.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The term ‘deportations’ refers to a legal definition of a specific set of returns. Deportations are a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person’s removal from the UK is conducive to the public good. The deportation order prohibits the person returning to the UK until such time as it may be revoked.

    Published information on those deported is not separately available. As such, the question has been interpreted as referring to enforced returns. In an enforced return, it has been established that a person has breached UK immigration laws and / or has no valid leave to remain in the UK. They have declined to leave voluntarily and the Home Office enforces their departure from the UK.

    Statistics on persons returned from the UK is published in the Home Office’s Immigration Statistics. The latest edition, Immigration Statistics: April to June 2016 is available from GOV.UK on the statistics web pages at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release.

  • 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 2016-01-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will publish his Department’s reasons for installing an Engineered Material Arresting System at RAF Northolt; how much he expects that installation to cost; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) is being scoped as a military infrastructure requirement commensurate with safety cases for military aircraft operating at RAF Northolt and the associated military aerodrome design standards utilised at the Station. I am withholding estimated costs for the EMAS project as it is at the pre-tender stage and disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests.

    The Mott McDonald report has no opinion or relevance against the military aerodrome design criteria and safety cases in place at the Station or the current operation of RAF Northolt. Any infrastructure investment for military operational requirements will continue to be undertaken as necessary to support military and Government outputs.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5773, HL5959 and HL5960), why they have not placed in the Library of the House a full copy of the original licence application submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9; why they have not placed in the Library of the House copies of the patient information and consent forms submitted to the HFEA by the person responsible in order to perform such work; how the conditions stipulated under paragraph 13 of Section G in Direction 0008 version 4 as published by HFEA on 29 October 2015 (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ General_Directions_0008. pdf) regarding Information to be submitted to the HFEA as part of the licensing process” were satisfied in the case of the decision; and why they will not place in the Library of the House a full copy of the responses to peer reviewers by the person responsible.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) publishes on its website the inspection report relating to a licence renewal application and the minutes of the Licence Committee’s decision. It does not publish other information associated with a licence application.

    The Licence Committee considering the application to which the noble Lord refers was satisfied that the requirements of General Directions 0008 were met, with the exception of evidence of ethics approval, which must be submitted to the HFEA before any licensed research can begin.

    The HFEA has advised that licence conditions R18-R27 and T97 address any potential conflict between the use of embryos in research and the use of embryos in the provision of treatment services. The person responsible did not give a reason on the application form for requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title, nor are they required to do so. The removal of ‘surplus’ from the title does not reflect a change in the way embryos will be donated to the research.