Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are consulting the fishing industry concerning its position following Brexit.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Government has met with representatives from the fishing industry concerning its position following EU exit and will continue to do so. This includes a round table discussion on 15 September 2016 which included representatives from the finfish and shellfish catching sectors, recreational fishermen and environmental NGOs.

  • Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-10-29.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they cancelled the contract with Saudi Arabia on justice, security and policing.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The Ministry of Justice has not entered into, or withdrawn from, a contract with Saudi Arabia concerning justice, security and policing. Earlier this year Just Solutions international (JSi), the commercial arm of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), submitted a bid to undertake a training needs analysis for the Saudi Arabian prison service. On 13 October 2015, the Secretary of State for Justice announced that this bid would be withdrawn, and so no contract was signed. I refer the honourable member to the Justice Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons which can be found in House of Commons Hansard Debates, 13 Oct 2015: Column 180.

    No direct cost was incurred as a result of withdrawing the bid from the competition process.

  • Gerald Kaufman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Gerald Kaufman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Kaufman on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he intends to answer the letter to him from the Right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to her dated 19 October 2015 on Mr K. Joslin.

    Mr David Lidington

    I apologise for the delay to the response to the letter from the Right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton of 19 October 2015. The letter covered a number of complex issues and, in order to provide the Rt hon. Member with the most comprehensive response, the reply to this letter has been delayed.

    I, along with my ministerial colleagues, take correspondence from members of this House very seriously and always seek to provide comprehensive and informative responses.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne-Marie Trevelyan on 2016-01-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people who have been granted asylum since 2000 have been (a) granted indefinite leave to remain after five years and (b) deported.

    James Brokenshire

    The term ‘deportations’ refers to a legal definition of a specific set of removals. Deportations are a specific subset of removals which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person’s removal from the UK is conducive to the public good. The deportation order prohibits the person returning to the UK until such time as it may be revoked. Published information on those deported is not separately available. As such, the question has been interpreted as referring to enforced removals. In an enforced removal, it has been established that a person has breached UK immigration laws and / or has no valid leave to remain in the UK. They have declined to leave voluntarily and the Home Office enforces their departure from the UK.

    The tables set out below provide a) asylum-related grants of settlement (indefinite leave to remain) from 2005 and b) the total number of enforced removals of people granted asylum at initial decision, from 2009 to 2014.

    The figures on asylum-related grants of settlement (indefinite leave to remain) relate to grants of settlement following appropriate residence eligibility periods, to individuals previously granted refugee status, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave or exceptional leave to remain. This may include some individuals who receiving asylum-related grants prior to 2000.

    Information on asylum-related grants of settlement and persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK are published in the Home Office’s Immigration Statistics. The latest edition, Immigration Statistics: July to September 2015, is available from GOV.UK on the statistics web pages at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release.

  • Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many children have been stillborn in each region in each of the last 10 years.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions the Government has had with the governments of Australia and New Zealand on the proposed introduction of an annual change to Australian and New Zealand citizens for use of the NHS.

    Alistair Burt

    On 6 April 2015 the United Kingdom introduced an immigration health surcharge for non-European Economic Area nationals who come to the UK to temporarily reside for a period of over six months. At the time Australian and New Zealand nationals were granted a temporary exemption and we entered into a series of discussions with both the Australian and New Zealand Government on the introduction of the surcharge for its nationals. My Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote to both the Australian Minister for Health and New Zealand High Commissioner confirming introduction of the surcharge on 17 December 2015. Introduction of the surcharge for Australian and New Zealand nationals was publicly announced by the Home Office on 4 February 2016 and subject to Parliamentary approval, it will come into effect from 6 April 2016.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what progress his Department has made on implementing its plans to impose financial penalties of up to £20,000 per worker against companies who fail to pay the national minimum wage.

    Nick Boles

    From 26 May 2015, the maximum penalty for underpayment of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) increased from £20,000 per notice of underpayment (NoU) to £20,000 per worker.

    From 1 April 2016 the penalty has been increased to 200% of the total underpayment for all of the workers specified in a NoU. By increasing penalties for underpayment of the NMW it is intended that employers, who could otherwise be tempted to underpay, comply with the law and working people receive the money they are legally due. The maximum penalty will remain at £20,000 per worker.

  • Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2016-04-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how the Government plans to give parents confidence that their child will be accepted by academies that determine their own admissions and ensure that the child’s needs will be met.

    Edward Timpson

    The law requires all schools, including academies, to comply with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan which names the school.

    Where a child or young person has Special Educational Needs (SEN) or disabilities but does not have an EHC plan, academies are required to comply with the Schools Admission Code and the law relating to admissions in considering their parents’ application for a place. Academies must:

    • consider such applications on the basis of the school’s published admissions criteria as part of their normal admissions procedures;
    • not refuse to admit a child because they do not feel able to cater for those needs; and
    • not refuse to admit a child on the grounds that they do not have an EHC plan.

    In addition:

    • the Equality Act 2010 prohibits all schools from discriminating against disabled children and young people in respect of admissions for a reason related to their disability; and
    • where an academy has a pupil with SEN on roll, it must use its ‘best endeavours’ to ensure that the child get the support needed.

    The Secretary of State also has powers under each academy’s funding agreement to direct the admission of a child to an academy. This power can be exercised if a school unlawfully removes a child from roll or if a school unlawfully refuses to comply with an EHC plan.

    Finally, anyone applying for a place as a mainstream applicant, which includes those with SEN but without an EHC plan, can appeal to an independent appeal panel constituted and operating in accordance with the School Admission Appeals Code, if refused admission. The decision of the panel is binding on all parties.

  • Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 6 June 2016 to Question 38480, whether his Department is taking steps in response to use of the NHS logo by the Vote Leave Campaign.

    George Freeman

    Vote Leave is not authorised to use the National Health Service trademark, or an adaptation of it.

    The Department has sought legal advice and has been in contact with the Vote Leave campaign about misuse of the NHS brand.

  • Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps the Government is taking to ensure that personal protective equipment which does not comply with the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 is not used in the UK.

    Margot James

    Under the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 it is a criminal offence to place on the market personal protective equipment that does not comply with the regulations or to supply any such equipment unless it is safe. Trading Standards are responsible for taking appropriate action against personal protective equipment that does not comply with the Regulations. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continues to work closely with Trading Standards to ensure that any Personal Protective Equipment on the market is safe.