UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Caroline Lucas

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-05-20.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will establish an investigation unit within HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to deal with cases in which the receiving parent has been advised by the Child Maintenance Service to contact HMRC to report possible tax evasion by the paying parent.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) works closely with the Child Maintenance Service as well as other Government Departments to ensure that all allegations of tax evasion from members of the public are assessed, dealt with appropriately and a decision made on the most appropriate course of action.

    HMRC values the information they receive from the public and business community. Clamping down on those who try to cheat the system through evading taxes and over claiming benefits is a key priority for the Government and we are committed to ensuring the tax system operates fairly and efficiently.

    Any information received is passed on to HMRC’s Enforcement and Compliance teams. This can result in recovery of funds, education to help support compliance civil or criminal action depending on the severity of the evasion.

    More serious cases can result in prosecution action by HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to (a) assess and (b) address the effect on rail services of the infrastructure bottleneck at Croydon.

    Claire Perry

    Network Rail’s Sussex Route Study has assessed capacity constraints on the Brighton Main Line. It is increasingly apparent the junctions around Croydon create a complex operating environment for train operators, which translates into constrained capacity and potential delays for passengers. As we develop our emerging priorities for improvements to the national network in 2017, we will give due consideration to improving these junctions.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-07-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the requirements for the Great Northern and Thameslink services to be Driver Only Operation contained in the Invitation to Tender for the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Franchise apply to all other services across that franchise; what agreement is in place between GTR and his Department on Driver Only Operation; and if he will place that agreement in the public domain.

    Paul Maynard

    The requirements the Department specified for Driver Only Operation in the Invitation To Tender can be seen in that document on page 74. Govia proposed changes beyond what was specified in the Invitation to Tender in their bid. These were then contractualised in the Franchise Agreement as an obligation for the operator to fulfil. A copy of the Invitation To Tender and redacted Franchise Agreement is available on the DfT website.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the total amount of arrears recovered by HM Revenue and Customs for non-compliance with the national minimum wage is in 2016-17 to date; how many (a) workers and (b) employers those arrears relate to; and how many of those employers (i) were issued a financial penalty, (ii) self-corrected and paid those arrears back to the workers concerned without being issued a financial penalty and (iii) have been named and shamed for that non-compliance.

    Margot James

    HM Revenue and Customs do not provide ad-hoc data for National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage enforcement, although mid-year figures will be available later in the year.

    Employers found to have broken minimum wage law will be issued with a Notice of Underpayment by HMRC and will have 28 days to appeal against it. If the employer does not appeal or an appeal has been unsuccessful, HMRC will issue a case closure letter to the employer and refer them to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to be considered for naming and shaming. The employer will then have 14 days from the date of the case closure letter to make written representations to BEIS outlining whether they fall under any of the exceptional circumstances for not being named under the scheme. Employers issued with a case closure letter after 1 April 2016 will be named by BEIS in future naming rounds.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether the Carbon Plan will outline policies that ensure that the UK meets the emissions limit in the fourth carbon budget of a 50 per cent reduction in annual emissions on 1990 levels.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    We are engaging with a wide range of stakeholders and other government departments in order to meet the shared challenge of moving to a low carbon economy. The Emissions Reduction Plan will set out how we will meet our carbon budgets through the 2020s (the period covering the fourth and fifth carbon budgets).

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 26 July 2016 to Question 42842 and with reference to freedom of information requests ref: 2016-0032573 and ref: 2016-0042333, on pupil data sharing with the police and Home Office, on how many people has data been (a) requested and (b) provided in response to requests for information to the National Pupil Database made by the (i) Home Office and (ii) police; and if she will make a statement.

    Nick Gibb

    The National Pupil Database (NPD) is information the Department for Education (DfE) holds on pupils attending schools in England, which includes information collected in the School Census and attainment data from awarding organisations.

    The Home Office and police can request data from the NPD where they have clear evidence that a child may be at risk or if there is evidence of criminal activity. The data that can be requested does not include information on nationality, country of birth or English language proficiency.

    Between April 2012 and October 2016, the Police have made 31 access requests of the NPD data and the School Census. 21 of these have resulted in information being passed to the police. All were requests for individual level data about individual pupils. Therefore, information about 21 pupils has been shared.

    “Between July 2015 and September 2016, the Home Office has made requests of DfE data on 25 occasions. Two of these requests were subsequently withdrawn. During this 15 month period, requests relating to a total of 2,462 individuals have been made by the Home Office to DfE and 520 records have been identified within DfE data and returned to the Home Office.”

    To address any uncertainties, I have placed an information note in the House Libraries.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Improving the Asylum System

    Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Improving the Asylum System

    The question asked by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    What steps she is taking to improve the asylum system.

    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)

    We are taking immediate action to accelerate decision making and improve our asylum system by streamlining and modernising it, including by shortening interviews, removing unnecessary interviews, making the guidance more accessible, and dealing with cases more swiftly when they can be certified as manifestly unfounded.

    Caroline Lucas

    The Home Office is placing vulnerable, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels in local authority areas. It is directly commissioning those hotels and other services, because it knows that local authorities do not have the funding or capacity required. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that these vulnerable children are legally the Home Office’s responsibility, so that they are not left in legal limbo? Will she ensure that her Department takes a strategic approach that addresses the placement shortage, rather than its current ad hoc approach, and will she ensure that the police do all that they can to keep searching for those children who have gone missing and have yet to be relocated?

    Suella Braverman

    We take very seriously the position of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—and indeed of children, full stop. Safeguarding them is of the utmost importance to all authorities, and to the Home Office, when it comes to decision making. We will shortly look at the funding arrangement for local authorities’ support of these children, so that their needs are properly met.

    Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)

    Potentially one of the best parts of our asylum system is the safe route created for Afghans who helped British forces during the war in Afghanistan. They are often full of professional skills, speak good English, and could make a huge contribution to this country, if they were allowed to move on with their life. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me a report on progress on getting more of these Afghan citizens out of hotels, and allowing them to get on with their life and to contribute to our society?

    Suella Braverman

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We support those who have come to the United Kingdom through designated schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and those people who supported allied forces in Afghanistan. Far too many of those Afghan nationals are being accommodated in hotels; on that, he is right. That is why we are moving very quickly. We are working with the Ministry of Defence, and are looking at all options, including, for example, service family accommodation, to properly accommodate a cohort of Afghans, so that they can move on with their life and settle peacefully here.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Home Secretary.

    Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)

    In 2020, the Home Office secured just 12 convictions a month for people smuggling into the UK. In 2021, that fell to eight a month and, in the first half of 2022, it fell to just three a month. The smuggler gangs have proliferated, and the dangerous boat crossings that put lives at risk are up twentyfold, yet the number of criminals paying the price for their crime has collapsed. Why has the Home Secretary totally failed to take action against the criminal gangs?

    Suella Braverman

    Let me point out who has totally failed to take any action against the criminal gangs: the right hon. Lady and the Labour party. I am really enjoying the shadow Home Secretary’s reinvention over the past weeks and months, but despite her trying to sound tough on illegal migration and people smugglers, Labour voted against our new offences for prosecuting the people smugglers who are causing the problem on the channel. Labour voted against tougher sentences that enable us to deport foreign rapists and foreign drug dealers. Labour would scrap our Rwanda scheme. Yesterday, the right hon. Lady did not even know whether illegal entry was an offence. The reality is that Labour has no plan whatever on illegal migration; it is against our plan, and all it wants is open borders.

    Yvette Cooper

    The Home Secretary had no response on the total collapse in prosecutions, and she has had 12 years in charge. She says that the asylum system is broken; well, who broke it? Minsters have been running the system for the last 12 years, in which they have made things worse. Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force, the number of people arriving by dangerous boat has reached a record high, so their legislation has not worked. The Prime Minister promised extra money for the National Crime Agency, but two days after he made that announcement, the Home Office does not know how much that money is, and the Treasury has not agreed anything. Can the Home Secretary tell us how much additional funding there will be for the National Crime Agency, and where it is coming from? On the Conservatives’ watch, a multimillion-pound criminal industry has grown along our border, and while Ministers faff around, gangs are making profit and people are drowning.

    Suella Braverman

    I am proud of the announcement that the Prime Minister made last week, setting out a comprehensive, methodical and compassionate approach to dealing with illegal migration and stopping the boats crossing the channel, dealing with the asylum backlog, responding to the cohort of people who have come here illegally from Albania, operationalising our Rwanda agreement and ensuring that ultimately we crack down on the people smugglers through better operational command on the channel. The right hon. Lady needs to get with the programme. I invite her to reverse her opposition to our plan, come up with a methodical plan and then let us have a proper conversation.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

    Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

    The parliamentary question asked by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    How many at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni in Afghanistan his Department has (a) assessed as eligible for and (b) resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 since 6 January 2022.

    Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)

    What humanitarian support his Department is providing to Afghan people (a) in and (b) fleeing Afghanistan.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    The UK has already resettled more than 6,300 people through various resettlement schemes. In the first phase of the Afghan resettlement scheme pathway 3, we will offer up to 1,500 places. We have received 11,400 expressions of interest and we are working through those quickly. We have disbursed £228 million since April 2022, on top of £286 million in aid for Afghanistan last financial year.

    Caroline Lucas

    The Foreign Secretary says that he is working quickly, yet we know that zero Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. No wonder yesterday the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), admitted that we must do better when confronted with the staggering delay. I am in touch with Chevening alumni, for example, who have been living in fear of their lives for more than 16 months now. By the Government’s own admission, pathway 3 in its first year will help only 400 applicants and their families—a tiny number—out of more than 11,000. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Home Office urgently supercharge the scheme, increase the number of people working on it in the Department and, crucially, allow the 20,000 people Ministers say they want to help over five years to come now? They cannot wait for another four or five years; they are in fear of their lives now.

    James Cleverly

    I have to correct the hon. Lady. She says that we have not made any resettlements under the ACRS. As I said in my answer, we have granted indefinite leave to remain to 6,300 eligible people. I think that she was making specific reference to pathway 3, which we are working on, but the House ought to recognise that we have already given indefinite leave to remain to more than 6,000 eligible people.

    Sam Tarry

    Last year my team and I heard countless harrowing, brutal stories of people and their families being murdered in Afghanistan, often while on the phone to my casework team. My team are still shocked and triggered by that awful experience; by the pictures they saw and the voicemails they heard. The FCDO really has to do a lot more to make sure that more people in Afghanistan do not die at the hands of the Taliban. I do not know whether I am going to correct my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but my understanding is that only four Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. Many of my constituents have lost loved ones, so I want to know just two things from the Foreign Secretary: what support is being offered to Afghan refugees currently stuck in Pakistan, and what will he be doing to speak to Home Office colleagues and ensure that this absolute mess of resettling people is sorted out promptly?

    James Cleverly

    Yet again, I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. He said that only four people had been settled under the ACRS. I say again, for the third time, that around 6,300 eligible people have been granted indefinite leave to remain under the referral pathways of the ACRS. We will of course continue to work both across HMG and with our international partners to resettle at-risk Afghans, and will particularly look at the individuals who have been supportive of the UK, and those particularly at risk because they are women, academics or members of the judiciary.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-10-22.

    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September 2015 to Question 8501, on the Wilson Doctrine, what responsibilities he has in relation to the operation of the Wilson Doctrine; what responsibilities the Home Secretary has in relation to that Doctrine; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr David Cameron

    I refer the hon. Member to the position on the Wilson Doctrine set out by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) during the debate on 19 October 2015, Official Report, column 700.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-10-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 18 September 2015 to Question 9704, whether current staffing levels for (a) torture prevention and (b) death penalty projects will be maintained in 2015-16.

    Mr David Lidington

    The staff levels in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as in all Departments, will be dependent on the outcomes of the Spending Review. The FCO’s work on the prevention of tortue and the death penalty will remain central to our human rights work overseas in 2015-16.