Tag: Alex Cunningham

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what provisions her Department makes for long-term humanitarian funding for children in protracted crises (a) in Central African Republic and (b) elsewhere where aid organisations are inhibited in providing psycho-social support for children affected by armed conflict because of short-term funding cycles.

Mr Desmond Swayne

Since 2013, the UK has committed £58 million to address the needs of Central Africans, Central African children and of CAR refugees. This funding has enabled agencies to support children who have been separated from their families, provide services for girls and boys who have suffered sexual and gender-based violence, to reduce malnutrition, and give children access to education and training. The UK monitors need in CAR and reviews regularly the strategy and level of support it provides.

In many other conflict affected countries DFID is providing multi-year funding to help humanitarian agencies with strategic longer term plans to assist conflict affected populations, including children.

In the Syria region for example, the UK has allocated £111 million to provide protection, psychosocial support and education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the region. In Iraq, this includes funding to establish women and children’s centres, which provide counselling and support for women, and safe spaces for children to play and learn. In Syria, the UK is supporting children with food, shelter and health. The UK also helped launch, and mobilise international support for, the ‘No Lost Generation’ Initiative (NLGI), which aims to prevent a whole generation being lost to the Syria conflict through physical and psychological trauma and lack of access to quality education and other basic services.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what evidence her Department has recently received about wildlife mortality caused by lead poisoning resulting from the use of lead ammunition in sports shooting.

Rory Stewart

The Government is considering the independent Lead Ammunition Group’s report on the effect of lead shot on human and wildlife health and will respond as soon as possible.

The Food Standards Agency has produced advice on the consumption of lead shot game which can be accessed at https://www.food.gov.uk/science/advice-to-frequent-eaters-of-game-shot-with-lead.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the number of (a) healthy adults, (b) pregnant women and (c) children who regularly consume game meat shot with lead.

Jane Ellison

Government set up the independent Lead Ammunition Group in 2010 to provide advice on risks to wildlife and human health from lead shot game. The Government is considering the independent Lead Ammunition Group’s report on the effect of lead shot on human and wildlife health and will respond as soon as possible The Food Standards Agency (FSA) accepts the expert advice of the UK Committee on Toxicity and the European Food Safety Authority that it is not possible to set a safe level for exposure to lead from food. However, to better understand the potential risk to UK consumers the FSA produced a risk assessment in 2012 based on its survey data from 2007 of game meat samples; Veterinary Medicines Directorate data from the national surveillance scheme was also considered. The FSA risk assessment considered the potential levels of exposure to lead from lead shot game for adults, children and toddlers based on different levels of game meat consumption.

This risk assessment led to FSA issuing targeted advice to frequent consumers of lead shot game in 2012, warning of the potential risks. The advice was promoted as especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant women and women trying for a baby, as exposure to lead can harm the developing brain and nervous system. The FSA risk assessment was published along with this advice. The Government has not estimated the number of people who regularly consume game meat shot with lead.

More generally, the FSA, works on behalf of the UK within the European Union to agree harmonised controls to reduce public exposure to lead in the food chain. EU maximum limits apply for lead in a range of foods and these are regularly reviewed by the EU Commission and member states. These maximum limits apply to all food produced in the EU or imported to the EU.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of whether ending her Department’s funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit would affect the UK’s Commitment to Action on the illegal wildlife trade.

Rory Stewart

An assessment of the effect of future funding decisions regarding the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit on the UK’s Commitment to Action on the Illegal Wildlife Trade has not yet been made.

Decisions on future funding of the National Wildlife Crime Unit beyond March 2016 will be made as part of the current Spending Review process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions her Department has had with Police and Crime Commissioners on the priority afforded to the enforcement of wildlife crime.

Mike Penning

Home Office Ministers have a range of discussions on a wide variety of subjects. Police and Crime Commissioners are helping to ensure that police forces’ priorities reflect those of the communities they serve, with individual police forces enjoying the flexibility to deploy their resources without unnecessary interference from central government.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-12-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which bodies are responsible for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

George Eustice

We have received several representations enquiring about various aspects of the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 over the last 12 months. They include representations on local authority powers under the 2006 Act and the ability of the RSPCA to bring forward prosecutions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-01-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many bearskins and other associated headgear containing real fur his Department purchased in each of the last 10 years.

Mr Philip Dunne

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not buy bear pelts; it buys ceremonial caps direct from suppliers who source pelts from animals culled as part of a programme to manage the wild population licensed by the Canadian government. Animal welfare standards relating to the bear cull are a matter for the Canadian government.

The MOD also purchases coney skin (rabbit fur) for the Royal Engineers’ and Royal Signals’ busby and fox fur for the Royal Horse Artillery, Kings Troop Officers’ busby. The current contract requires a commitment to sustainable procurement.

Depending on usage and maintenance, bearskin busbys can last for up to 50 years. The coney skin and fox fur busbys have indefinite lifespans if properly maintained.

Calendar Year	Cost of Bearskin Busby Headgear (£)	Financial Year	Cost of Coney Skin Busby Headgear (£)	Cost of Fox Fur Busby Headgear(£)
2005	Not held	2005-06	1,532	0
2006	Not held	2006-07	0	1,472
2007	Not held	2007-08	0	0
2008	31,319	2008-09	9,173	406
2009	148,891	2009-10	0	0
2010	131,886	2010-11	0	0
2011	90,822	2011-12	0	861
2012	126,087	2012-13	1,779	861
2013	65,108	2013-14	0	0
2014	136,671	2014-15	10,257	1,899
2015	149,379	2015-16	2,558	0

All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Calendar Year	Number of Bearskin Busby Headgear	Financial Year	Number of Coney Skin Busby Headgear	Number of Busby Headgear made of Fox Fur
2005	Not held	2005-06	4	0
2006	Not held	2006-07	0	2
2007	Not held	2007-08	0	0
2008	35	2008-09	22	1
2009	195	2009-10	0	0
2010	158	2010-11	0	0
2011	99	2011-12	0	1
2012	126	2012-13	4	1
2013	63	2013-14	0	0
2014	127	2014-15	20	2
2015	122	2015-16	5	0

Historically the MOD has undertaken a number of trials on synthetic alternatives to bear skin but none of these matched the properties of the natural material. No trialling has taken place since 2007. Information about costs of these trials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 2012 the Ministry of Defence loaned a sample bearskin to the animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to aid its research and development programme on a synthetic alternative.

There has been no research and development carried out to find a synthetic alternative to coney skin or fox fur.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-01-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will ensure that family court judges receive training on the new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour created by the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Caroline Dinenage

Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, responsibility for judicial training rests with the Lord Chief Justice and this is exercised through the Judicial College. Accordingly, the independence of the judiciary means that Government Ministers do not intervene with regard to the content of judicial training.

The Judicial College has advised me that the new offence will be incorporated into existing training programmes for the family jurisdiction, particularly the modules that include domestic abuse.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-02-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to send prisoners returned to jail having broken their licence conditions to a different prison than the one from which they were released.

Andrew Selous

Prisoners recalled to custody having breached the conditions of their licence will be arrested by the police and then taken to the nearest local prison for the area in which they were arrested. Prisoners who, prior to release had been held in the closed training estate or in an open prison, will not therefore be returned to the same prison from which their release took place. Those prisoners who had been held in a local prison prior to release on licence, may be returned to the same establishment if that is the nearest local prison for the area in which they were arrested.

Once returned to a local prison, prisoners will be re-assessed and a decision made on which prison is best suited to their needs, taking into account all factors in the case including the risks they present and other security issues. Prisoners recalled for short periods may remain in the local prison until release unless there are specific reasons, including security reasons, why they should be transferred elsewhere.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-02-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many children and women were seriously injured by a perpetrator of domestic violence after a Family Court decision to allow child access for a perpetrator of that crime in each of the last five years.

Mike Penning

Every family court has a system to support vulnerable court users. Protective measures are put in place whenever a court is aware that an individual involved in a case may be violent. These can include separate waiting areas, additional security and the use of separate entrances where appropriate.

Information on the number of children or women injured by a perpetrator of domestic violence after a Family Court decision relating to child contact is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by manually checking case files in criminal and family courts and matching records.

The family court takes the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. Where domestic violence or abuse is admitted or proven, any child arrangements order put in place must protect the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with whom the child is living, and not expose them to the risk of further harm. In particular, the court must be satisfied that any contact ordered with a parent who has perpetrated violence or abuse is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Where the court does conclude that direct contact is safe and beneficial for the child, it can impose conditions such as supervised contact to protect the child.