Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 2015-12-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) how many prison staff, and (2) what proportion of prison staff, have received Prevent awareness training for each (a) prison, and (b) young offender institution.

    Lord Faulks

    The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has a range of Prevent awareness training and briefing packages available for staff. Since April 2015 data has been collated recording the amount of training provided to staff in prisons and probation on extremism awareness.

    Between April 2015 and September 2015, 4,100 hours of training were delivered to over 4,900 staff in prisons directly managed by NOMS. The training is targeted at staff in prisoner facing roles. A further 650 staff from contracted establishments have also received training during this period. There figures do not include any staff trained before April 2015.

    Since April 2015 new Prison Officers receive Extremism Awareness Training as part of their entry level training, a total of 1,566 since this date.

    Some of the training sessions described above were delivered to staff from more than one prison and therefore to provide information on proportions of staff trained from each establishment would involve disproportionate cost.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-01-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many full-time equivalent staff in his Department were employed to work on human rights in 2014-15; and what the cost of these employees was to the public purse.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    As I said in my published article marking Human Rights Day, human rights work "is the responsibility of all British diplomats". Calculating the proportion of each UK diplomat’s time spent on human rights work, and their associated cost, would incur disproportionate cost.

  • Ronnie Cowan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Ronnie Cowan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many people under the age of 18 in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK were recruited to the armed forces in each of the last five years.

    Penny Mordaunt

    No information is held regarding the number of Service personnel under the age of 18 who were recruited in Scotland alone.

    The figures for the annual intake of under 18’s into the UK Regular Forces as a whole are summarised below.

    Ministry of Defence policy dictates that no-one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without specific parental consent, both for the recruiting process to begin and again prior to joining; nor can they be deployed outside of the UK or to front-line operations.

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Number of people recruited into the UK Regular Forces under the age of 18

    2, 920

    2,260

    2,130

    2,180

    Notes: Figures reflect intake for the 12 months ending 30 September in each year. Statistics for 12 months ending 30 September 2011 have not been published, however, statistics for 12 months ending 31 March 2011 are available in Tables 5 to 7 of the Annual Personnel Report:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280426/1-april-2011.pdf

    A detailed breakdown, by age, of the intake to UK Regular Forces can be found in Tables 8 and 8a of our Biannual Diversity Statistics publication:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-2015

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the Annex on a Comprehensive Franco-British Partnership on Civil Nuclear Energy, Franco-British Summit, on 3 March 2016, if she will publish the internal review of the Hinkley Point C project’s organisation.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The organisation of Hinkley Point C is a commercial matter for EDF. In the UK it is for developers to fund, build and operate new nuclear power stations.

  • Mark Prisk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Prisk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Prisk on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the period will be for a decision to be made on applications to the Primary Care Trust Fund.

    Alistair Burt

    NHS England will publish further guidance about the Primary Care Transformation Fund later this month.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thangam Debbonaire on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the effect on arts and culture of changes to local government funding from central government; and what further such discussions are planned on this issue.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    DCMS and DCLG Ministers and officials regularly discuss matters of shared interest including arts, culture and public libraries.The Culture White Paper which was published in March reflects the close working between the two Departments​.​

  • 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 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 13 June 2016 to Question 40383, whether the Government has the power under current delay repay infrastructure to allow people to claim compensation for 15-minute delays before it makes other planned improvements to compensation arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

    Claire Perry

    All franchised Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are required under their franchise agreement to have in place a Passenger’s Charter which will include arrangements for compensation for passengers. TOCs can, at their discretion, go beyond the commitments in their Passenger’s Charter including on compensation on an ex gratia basis.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the defintion of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on the ability of her Department to meet Stephen Shaw’s recommendation to adopt a wider definition of those at risk.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Andrew Stephenson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andrew Stephenson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Stephenson on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the quality of educational facilities in HM Prison Holloway; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrew Selous

    At HMP Holloway there are currently approximately 120 places in a morning session and the same in an afternoon session for women to attend education courses. Women may attend in one or two sessions each day depending on the type of course they are on. In addition there are approximately 40 places available to attend Physical Education provision and approximately 60 places in vocational training areas.

    The Secretary of State for Justice announced on 8th September a review of the quality of education in prisons, chaired by Dame Sally Coates. The review will examine the scope, quality and effectiveness of current provision. It will consider the scope and range of the current curricula and identify the most effective teaching and delivery models. Stakeholders are being consulted and a Call for Evidence has been issued. The review is expected to report in the spring of 2016. A copy of the terms of reference are lodged in the library of the House and at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-prison-education-terms-of-reference

  • Chris Bryant – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chris Bryant – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Bryant on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the cost is of special advisers in each Department.

    Matthew Hancock

    Information about the number, pay bands, and cost of special advisers will be published shortly in the normal way.