UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Fiona Mactaggart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Fiona Mactaggart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Mactaggart on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many children who have applied in France for asylum in the UK have been successful in their application in the last three years.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    It is not possible for an individual to apply for asylum in the UK from France. If an asylum claim is made in France and the French Government consider that the UK is responsible for examining that asylum claim under the Dublin Regulation, a transfer request is made, which the UK subsequently either accepts or rejects. If the transfer request is accepted, the individual is transferred to the UK where their asylum claim is considered.

    Before the beginning of the year very few transfers of children were made from France to the UK. However, following a concerted effort to improve the functioning of Dublin by the UK and French authorities, between 1 January and 1 October 2016 over 80 children have been accepted for transfer from France to the UK.

  • Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-11-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans to release files from their Special Collections archive during this Parliament.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Files outside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) standard corporate file plan are now known as non-standard files.

    Estimated at around 600,000, the non-standard files are generally older than the standard departmental files.

    We have divided most of the non-standard material into four main categories in order to prioritise the preparation of these files for transfer to The National Archives (TNA): High Priority (around 60,000 files), Medium and Low priority (around 290,000 files across both categories) and a separate category for the Hong Kong government records (around 270,000 files). The Hong Kong records require further assessment before we can prioritise them for release (most are on microform).

    Our prioritisation of the non-standard files has taken into account feedback from a wide variety of sources and interested parties including Professor Tony Badger, Professor of History at Northumbria University, the Independent Reviewer of the non-standard files.

    We aim to prepare for transfer to TNA all high priority non-standard files (10% of the total) by 2019.

    The first of the high priority records have now been released at TNA. They include 445 Colonial Reports, which are bound volumes of reports submitted annually to the Colonial Office by colonial governors. In October 2015, 254 files relating to the defection of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean were released to the public.

    Our current estimate is that we will be able to prepare the medium and low priority records for transfer to TNA by 2027.

    The FCO is committed to complying with the Public Records Act and to full transparency with respect to our record holdings.

  • Sarah Champion – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Champion – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Champion on 2015-12-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Albania have been returned to that country in the last year.

    James Brokenshire

    All unaccompanied asylum seeking children are referred to the Refugee Council’s panel of advisers.

    Age-assessments of unaccompanied asylum seeking children are conducted by local authorities. The guidance to local authority practitioners states that most assessments should be completed within 28 days, however the timescale for assessment should be responsive to the needs of the child or young person. The Home Office does not collect statistics on how many and what proportion are carried out within this timescale.

    Statistics on the number of age disputes raised and resolved for asylum applicants for each quarter from January 2010 to September 2015 are available on GOV.UK at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/476915/asylum3-q3-2015-tabs.ods

    The Home Office does not keep a record of the number of appeals against age assessments conducted by local authorities.

    Home Office policy is not to return unaccompanied asylum seeking children whose claim has been refused unless there are safe and adequate reception arrangements in place. Statistics on the number of children removed from the UK in 2014 are available on Gov.UK at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/476919/removals1-q3-2015-tabs.ods

    However, these statistics include all nationalities and non-asylum cases.

  • Lord Framlingham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Framlingham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Framlingham on 2016-01-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much public money has been spent on HS2 to date; how much is estimated to be spent in the next financial year; what is the estimated final cost to the public purse; and what is the projected completion date.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    To date (2009/10 – Dec 2015) the government has spent £1.4bn on the HS2 programme. The Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd are currently in the process of finalising their estimates for the next financial year (2016/17). The 2015 Spending Review reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to a long-term funding envelope for delivering the HS2 programme at £55.7bn in 2015 prices. Phase One and Phase 2a are scheduled to be complete by 2026 and the remainder of Phase Two is expected to be completed by 2034.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how many Daesh fighters have moved from Iraq and Syria to Libya; and what implications this has had on UK defence and security policies.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are aware that Daesh has called for Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTF) to travel to Libya and that there is a significant FTF contingent among the Daesh forces there, including individuals from Syria and Iraq.

    We are monitoring the situation closely and working closely with international partners to develop a comprehensive approach to defeat Daesh in Libya. This will be a priority for our discussions with the new Libyan government.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he plans not to make a final decision on resettlement of the Chagos Islanders until after the Supreme Court judgement on the 2008 decision of the House of Lords.

    James Duddridge

    The public consultation on a potential resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory concluded on 27 October 2015, and the summary of its responses was published by the Government on 21 January 2016. The Government is now considering all the relevant material, including these responses, and the recent independent feasibility study published in February 2015. The consultation is now closed and it is for the government to now make a decision.

  • 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 2016-04-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what mitigating actions they propose to take in the light of the equality analysis undertaken under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 showing that certain features of the new contract for doctors in training will have an adverse impact on women who take maternity leave.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The contract published on 31 March is a huge step forward for achieving fairness for all trainee doctors. For the first time junior doctors will be paid and rewarded solely on the basis of their own hard work and achievement and pay progression will be linked to level of training rather than arbitrarily to time served.

    All junior doctors should have the same terms and conditions – a level playing field – which is ultimately what employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) want and everyone deserves.

    When the Secretary of State published the Equality Analysis on the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS (“Doctors”) on the 31 March 2016 on the GOV.UK website he made it clear that, as a result of considering the Equality Analysis, in accordance with his duties and obligations, he had asked for a number of changes to the draft contract to address specific issues for certain groups with protected characteristics. This has been done and the contract has been duly amended. These changes included changes that benefited staff who work part time. The new contract is not discriminatory it ensures that all junior doctors receive equal pay for work of equal value. The BMA’s own lawyers have advised that nothing in the new contract is discriminatory. Nevertheless the equality duty is an ongoing duty and it is intended that monitoring will continue after the introduction of the new contract in accordance with the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010.

    A copy of the Equality Analysis is attached.

  • Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Malcolm McDonald on 2016-05-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will direct Vauxhall to extend the vehicle safety recall of Zafira B models to include those equipped with automatic climate control.

    Andrew Jones

    There are no plans to tell Vauxhall to extend the vehicle safety recall of Zafira B models to include those equipped with automatic climate control.

    The secondary safety recall (R/2016/104) affects only Vauxhall Zafira B vehicles equipped with a manual control heating and ventilation system.

    Vauxhall Zafiras fitted with automatic climate control use a different resistor pack that is not affected by manipulation or degradation, so their inclusion in the safety recall is unnecessary.

  • David Amess – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    David Amess – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Amess on 2016-07-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will take steps to ensure that new investment in the Primary PE and Sport Premium directly benefits (a) the least active children and (b) children from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

    Edward Timpson

    We want all pupils to be healthy and active. We have ring-fenced over £450 million to improve PE and sport in primary schools (2013/14 – 2015/16), and committed to doubling the primary PE and sport premium to £320 million a year from September 2017 using revenue from the soft drinks industry levy. Schools have the freedom to decide how to use the funding based on the needs of their pupils, and can choose to target funding on the least active and children from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. Schools are accountable for their spending through Ofsted inspections and are required to report plans and impact online.

    We have evaluated the impact and schools’ use of the premium through the independent research company, NatCen. Evidence indicates the funding is having a positive impact and schools reported almost universally that the PE and sport premium had had a positive impact on physical fitness (99%), healthy lifestyles (99%), skills (98%) and behaviour of pupils (96%).[1].

    We are currently exploring options for future evaluation once the premium is doubled. Further details will be announced in due course.

    [1] Evidence from the 2015 report, based on findings of a two year study between 2013 – 2015: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pe-and-sport-premium-an-investigation-in-primary-schools

    “

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what criteria are used when deciding to give heroin to heroin addicts in line with his Department’s policy set out on page 31 of the Modern Crime Prevention Strategy, published by his predecessor in March 2016.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The prescribing of injectable opioids, such as methadone or diamorphine (pharmaceutical heroin) as substitutes for illicit heroin, as outlined in the Government’s Modern Crime Prevention Strategy, published in March by the then Home Secretary, has been an option for many years but since the late 1960s, prescribing of diamorphine for the management of addiction has been restricted to licensed addiction specialists.

    The decision to prescribe injectable diamorphine for the treatment of dependence is a clinical matter, for a clinician to take in conjunction with the patient. Advice to guide these decisions is contained in Chapter 5 and Annex 8 of the 2007 UK Guidelines on the Clinical Management of Drug Misuse and Dependence. The guidelines advise that:

    – “injectable opioid treatment may be suitable for a small minority of patients who have failed in optimised oral treatment.”;

    – “clinicians providing injectable opioid treatment should encourage patients not to regard it as a lifelong treatment option and should regularly review their patients and the continuing necessity for this unusual and expensive treatment”; and

    – The use of diamorphine “alone does not constitute drug treatment…it should be seen as on element or pathway within wider packages of planned and integrated drug treatment”.

    The guidelines are currently being reviewed by an Expert Working Group, to take into account developments in the evidence base. In July 2016, the Expert Working Group published their draft update for consultation. The consultation has closed and the responses are being considered by the Expert Working Group.

    Diamorphine is licensed as a medicine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Clinicians wishing to legally prescribe it for the treatment of dependence need to obtain a licence for that purpose from the Home Office and to comply with all other legislation relevant to the safe management, use and supply of medicines which are controlled drugs.