Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has held with the government of Nigeria on the situation in Biafra.

    James Duddridge

    The UK fully supports the territorial integrity of Nigeria and President Buhari’s commitment to work for a secure and prosperous Nigeria for all Nigerians. President Buhari has recently concluded the appointment of a new Government. We will continue to underline the importance of freedom of expression and acting in accordance with the rule of law with all parties, including the new Nigerian government.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the reasons in the discrepancy between the proportion of granted asylum claims which are made to people from Pakistan and the proportion of applicants under the detained fast-track procedure who are from that country.

    James Brokenshire

    The basis of an individual’s asylum claim is not recorded on Home Office systems. It is not therefore possible to differentiate Pakistani applicants claiming for reasons of religious persecution and discrimination from Pakistani applicants claiming for one or more other reasons in the Detained Fast Track (DFT) or the non-detained process.

    Certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not requested by an applicant. It is applied by the Secretary of State in circumstances where the applicant’s claim is refused and considered to be so lacking in merit as to be clearly unfounded.

    The number of initial certified refusals for Pakistan main asylum applicants, from year ending September 2013 to year ending September 2015, was 604. The Home Office publishes data on asylum applications and decisions on a quarterly and annual basis. The information supplied on certified refusals is based on initial decisions which do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

    No assessment has been made of any difference that might exist between grant rates in respect of Pakistani applicants in the DFT process when it operated, and cases entering the non-detained process at the same time. However, as the DFT process avoided claims involving particular complexity and/or vulnerability, and prioritised cases which appeared to be late or opportunistic, it is to be expected that the DFT would have fewer grants than the non-detained process.

  • Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make provision to apply fixed recoverable costs across the range of fast-track cases, and in the lower reaches of the multi-track, as recommended by the judiciary and referred to in the Lord Chief Justice’s Review of the Administration of Justice in the Courts of 2015.

    Lord Faulks

    The Government remains supportive of the principle of extending fixed recoverable costs and we continue to consider areas in which implementation might be appropriate and workable.

  • Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Murrison on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on which dates (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department have met with BT to discuss separating Openreach from its parent company.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    This is a matter for the independent telecoms regulator, Ofcom, who is currently reviewing the markets for digital communications in the UK and is due to report at the end of this month. Government has no role in this process.

  • Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 2016-03-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many offenders have been sentenced and imprisoned in the UK after having been returned to the UK under a European Arrest Warrant.

    Lord Faulks

    This information is not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    The National Crime Agency publishes statistics on the operation of the European Arrest Warrant. These can be found on their website.

  • Adam Holloway – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Adam Holloway – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Adam Holloway on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans his Department has to deploy the armed forces in Libya to provide security for the Libyan Government of National Accord.

    Michael Fallon

    Multinational planning, in which the UK has played a supporting role, is focused on training Libyan security forces to provide their own security to the new Libyan government and Libyan people.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England guidance is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return, so that patients are not waiting on ‘hidden’ lists.

    Furthermore, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) also assesses providers against the new fundamental standards of safety and quality below which care should never fail. One of these standards requires that care and treatment must be appropriate and reflect service users’ needs and preferences. Another requires that care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The CQC will require a provider to improve where it is not meeting these standards.

    No assessment has been made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times, as the risks will also vary between services, specialties and patients. It is for clinicians to make these judgements.

    The information requested on delays to review outpatient appointments is not collected centrally.

  • Baroness Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Cox on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the UN Security Council resolution of 31 May calling for a suspension of the Transitional Government of National Unity’s decision to increase the number of states in South Sudan to 28.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have consistently expressed serious concern at President Kiir’s decision on 2nd October 2015 to create 28 states in South Sudan, in contradiction to the peace agreement he signed in August 2015. The UK voted in favour of UN Security Council Resolution 2290 of 31 May 2016, which underlined the need to address this issue. We welcome that the Transitional Government of National Unity has subsequently begun the process of forming a Boundary Commission that should resolve this dispute.

  • Jeffrey M. Donaldson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jeffrey M. Donaldson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeffrey M. Donaldson on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the deadline for the receipt of applications for Armed Forces Day 2018 will be.

    Mike Penning

    Applications for the National Event are accepted at any time, though should typically be submitted by the end of March in the preceding year, so March 2017 for the 2018 event.

  • Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Hugo Swire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hugo Swire on 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the age of young refugees from the camp in Calais received into the UK.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The EU’s Dublin Regulation clearly sets out the criteria for transferring asylum claims between Member States. The Government wishes to reaffirm that migrants in Calais have not yet been determined as refugees, and furthermore, the Dublin Regulation is the EU’s mechanism for transferring asylum claims, rather than a resettlement route. Section 67 of the Immigration Act sets out that ‘unaccompanied refugee children’ will be relocated to the UK. In respect of Calais, the Government has been clear that unaccompanied children will be prioritised if they meet the Dublin criteria.

    We work closely with the French authorities and their partner agencies to ensure all those who come to the UK from the camps in Calais are eligible under the Dublin Regulation. All individuals are referred to the UK authorities by the NGO France Terre D’asile (FTDA) and are then interviewed by French and UK officials. Basic security checks are conducted on all individuals prior to arrival, with further verification carried out once in the UK.

    Where credible and clear documentary evidence of age is not available, criteria including physical appearance and demeanour are used as part of the interview process to assess age. Where we believe someone is significantly over 18, they will be refused. The Home Office does not use dental x-rays to confirm the ages of those seeking asylum as they have been described by the British Dental Association as inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical.

    Since June the Home Office has been working closely with local authorities and Strategic Migration Partnerships across the UK to ensure that we have the structures in place to support the transfer of unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children, both within the UK and from Europe.