UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Jim Fitzpatrick

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many local authorities have not conducted any sampling to check food composition over the last 12 months.

    Jane Ellison

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) collects food law enforcement monitoring returns from local authorities annually. Data for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 is currently being collected. Following collation and analysis, the FSA plans to publish this data in November 2014.

    The FSA advises that the following local authorities did not report any food composition sampling in 2012-13 via the Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring System (LAEMS):

    Armagh

    Birmingham

    Blackburn

    Bolton

    Darlington

    Isle of Wight

    Leicester City

    Plymouth City

    Redcar and Cleveland

    Rochdale

    Rutland

    South Lanarkshire

    Swindon

    Tameside

    All of these authorities reported taking other labelling or microbiological samples in 2012-13.

    A table has been placed in the Library which shows how many food standards samples (composition and labelling) each local authority reported via LAEMS in 2012-13, together with a comparison against the number reported in 2011-12 and how many food standards samples each local authority reported through a FSA-funded project.

    All of the reported food standards samples were official samples and would have been submitted to the local authority’s appointed Public Analyst for analysis. Out of 22,055 food standards samples in 2012-13, 4,387 were funded by the FSA, all other food standards samples would have been paid for by the local authority. By comparison, in 2011-12, the FSA funded 5,072 out of 21,970 food standards samples.

    For some local authorities, the FSA funded sampling figure is larger than the number included in the LAEMS report. The difference will be due to the LAEMS reports only including samples for which the analytical result was received from the Public Analyst before 31 March 2013.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what meetings he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding the tolling of proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how that will impact on traffic levels at the Dartford Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against and (c) convicted of an offence under the provisions of the (i) Game Act 1831, (ii) Deer Act 1991, (iii) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (iv) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (v) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, (vi) Animal Welfare Act 2006, (vii) Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (viii) Hunting Act 2004, (ix) Night Poaching Act 1828, (x) Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, (xi) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, (xii) Pests Act 1954 and (xiii) Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in each year since 2009.

    Mike Penning

    The number of offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts for offences (all in England and Wales from 2009 to 2013) under the Game Act 1831 can be viewed in Table 1, under the Deer Act 1991 in Table 2, under the Protection of Badgers act 1992 in Table 3, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Table 4, under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Table 5, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in Table 6, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in Table 7, under the Night Poaching Act 1828 in Table 8, under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 in Table 9, under the Hunting Act 2004 in Table 10 and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in Table 11. The tables can be found in the Library. Data for the Pests Act 1954, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is held as part of a miscellaneous group that cannot be separately analysed.We are very clear that serious offences will always go to court where tough punishments are available to the independent judiciary, who make their sentencing decisions based on the individual facts of the case.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what meetings he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how they impact on the options for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what written correspondence he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding the tolling of proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how that will impact on traffic levels at the Dartford Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what written correspondence he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how they impact on the options for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect on the UK’s relationship with Bangladesh of the activities in the UK of Tareque Rahman, Vice Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

    Hugh Robertson

    The UK enjoys a broad and wide ranging relationship with Bangladesh which is built on engagement with the government of Bangladesh and Bangladesh political parties, business and cultural exchanges between our people. We work on a range of bilateral and global issues that include Bangladesh’s recent endorsement of the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. We are not aware of any activities by Mr Rahman that have had an impact on our bilateral relationship.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the immigration status is of Tareque Rahman, Vice Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

    James Brokenshire

    For reasons of confidentiality, the Home Office does not routinely
    comment on individual cases.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to reply to the letters to him of 2 April and 9 May 2014 from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse.

    Mr Mark Francois

    I replied to the hon. Member on 25 September 2014.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to reform civil procedure rules to clarify courts’ powers to strike out cases due to exaggerated or fabricated personal injury claims; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The Government is committed to turning the tide on fraudulent personal injury claims. To this end, it is considering what specific reforms might be appropriate, including whether the Law Commission should be asked to consider this issue. We will make our conclusions known in due course.

    No figures are available on the number of exaggerated or fabricated personal injury claims struck out by the courts. Figures for 2011 published by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) indicate that whiplash claims cost customers more than £2 billion a year and add £90 to the average motor insurance premium.

    The ABI describe 7% of all motor claims in 2011 – worth £441m – as fraudulent. In addition, they estimate that a further £1 billion of motor insurance fraud went undetected in 2011.

    As announced last year, we are working with stakeholders in the industry to tighten the medical evidence process so that only evidence from accredited experts can be considered, and the costs for those reports can be fixed. This will mean people can no longer profit from exaggerated or fraudulent compensation claims but victims with genuine cases can still get the help they deserve. We are introducing these reforms later in the year. We are also working to secure better data on motor accident cases, including the number of fraudulent cases.