UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what her Department’s current service standard is for the time taken to process further submissions related to an asylum claim.

    James Brokenshire

    There is not a formal service standard for deciding further submissions from failed asylum seekers. The Home Office is balancing resource between those failed asylum seekers with no leave to remain who have made further submissions on the one hand and, on the other, those who were granted a limited period of leave following the refusal of their application who have outstanding applications for Further Leave.

    With regard to further submissions lodged by failed asylum seekers, there is dedicated resource in place to decide cases in the existing stock of further submissions and to also decide new submissions quickly, wherever possible within 5 days of their being lodged. With regard to cases in the stock of further submissions, the Home Office is prioritising cases where applicants are in receipt of asylum support and cases where the applicant may be removed from the United Kingdom in the eventuality their submission is refused. The Home Office will also give priority to further submissions case that have been outstanding for the longest period of time.

    The figures in the below table relate to failed asylum seekers who had outstanding further submissions as of 30 June 2015:

    Timescale (Years) Total

    1 – 2 2383

    2 – 3 1426

    3 or more 1267

    Total 5076

  • Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Scriven – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-12-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 10 December (HL4243), whether the specific power of the Mayor to veto a vote by not voting for a motion, as set out in paragraph 4 of the Sheffield City Region Devolution Agreement, remains negotiable.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    All deals are agreed in principle, and we are therefore open to extending or amending existing devolution deals. However, it is vital that any alternative arrangement offered by Sheffield City Region would ensure that the Mayor will retain the same or stronger powers as the currently agreed arrangements.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-01-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the current advertisement on the Morgan Hunt website for a post of stakeholder engagement consultant, in which department the successful candidate will work; who that person will report to; and who will approve that appointment.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The advertisement is for an appointment for a limited period within the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The appointee will be approved by and report to an official at Grade 6 level within the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil and will provide support to the team in its communications activities, which will include the production of core engagement materials for use with a range of different audiences in order to explain complex information in an easily digestible format. Once a suitable candidate has been identified, final approval will be sought from DECC HR.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when he plans to answer Question 23160 tabled on 19 January 2016, on the Code for America programme.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The PQ has now been answered.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-03-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the value of sanctioned Iranian assets currently held by (a) the Government and (b) any other entity within the UK.

    Harriett Baldwin

    Financial sanctions are implemented in the United Kingdom by HM Treasury. When assets are frozen they remain where they are held and are not seized or confiscated by the government or the Treasury. As such, the government does not hold frozen assets belonging to designated Iranian or other persons subject financial sanctions.

    Every year the Treasury requests information from businesses on funds they hold that are frozen under financial sanctions legislation. The most recent data from September 2015 showed that there was approximately £728,450,000 of funds frozen under the Iran (non-proliferation) sanctions regime.

    In July 2015 the EU/E3+3 and the Islamic Republic of Iran reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). On 16 January 2016 the initial sanctions relief provided for under the JCPoA came into effect. Part of this relief included the lifting of the asset freeze against certain individuals and entities with frozen balances of approximately £657,830,000. Therefore approximately £70,620,000 remains frozen.

    The next phase of sanctions relief under the JCPoA is due on Transition Day in eight years’ time, or when the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.

  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2016-04-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the access to fundamental rights of the Rohingya in Burma, and of adherence to international law in Burma, including during Burmese Army attacks on Shan and Kachin states.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We remain deeply concerned at the lack of fundamental human rights affecting the Rohingya in Rakhine State. It is also clear that violations and abuses continue to occur in conflict affected areas of Kachin and Northern Shan. The recent increase in fighting there is a setback to the gains made in the peace process during 2015. We call on all parties to stop fighting and engage in dialogue towards a truly nationwide ceasefire and a lasting political solution.

    Addressing the problems of Rakhine, particularly the desperate situation of the Rohingya community, and reinvigorating the peace process are two of the most urgent and serious challenges facing the new government. We will continue to support and encourage the National League for Democracy-led government in making progress on these.

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what plans the Government has to become a founding donor to the Education Cannot Wait fund for education in emergencies.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    The UK has played a leading role in the development of the Education Cannot Wait fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, which was launched at the World Humanitarian Summit on 23rd May.　 The UK has committed to provide £30million in support over two years to the new fund as a founding donor, which was announced by the International Development Secretary at the fund’s launch.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-07-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what support regional school commissioners are expected to provide to organisations in their area wishing to become an academy sponsor.

    Edward Timpson

    Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs) have an important role to play in encouraging and supporting high performing schools to extend their influence by growing Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) and recruiting new sponsors to their region. The RSCs support schools and other organisations to become sponsors and grow effectively by offering practical one-to-one advice and facilitating supportive networks between MATs. They are also able to commission additional support for trusts where that is required, for example, from local Teaching School Alliances.

    As set out in our White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere, in the future MAT support will be system-led, and there will be a role for larger and more experienced trusts in supporting growing trusts as they develop. The Department is taking a number of steps to support MATs with leadership and governance, including:

    • a MAT CEO development programme;

    • redesigning a National Professional Qualification in leadership; and

    • funding the academy ambassadors programme that has resulted in over 240 experienced business leaders providing support to MATs by joining trust boards as non-executives.

    We are committing funding for 5 years to provide long term stability to help many more volunteers find a school or MAT that is looking for someone with their skills.

    The Government has allocated £300 million that will be available to support schools to convert and, in particular, support sponsors to turn around failing schools. A further £300 million will be available to support strong and effective multi-academy trusts to grow and improve.

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

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 19 September (HL1473), who are the members of HS2 Ltd.’s Conflict of Interest Panel; which cases of potential conflict of interest they have considered in the last year; what was their decision in each case; and whether they intend to publish this information every six months in the future.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    It is not possible to provide the names of HS2 Ltd’s Conflict of Interest Panel Members, nor details of specific cases which have been heard as we do not consider doing so would be consistent with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Unfair disclosure of personal data is a breach of the First Data Protection Principles under the DPA.

  • Christina Rees – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Christina Rees – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christina Rees on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons the matters within his Department’s responsibility in Schedule 1 of the draft Wales Bill have been designated as reserved.

    Dominic Raab

    The reservations listed in Schedule 1 to the draft Wales Bill reflects the Government’s view of where the Welsh devolution boundary lies following the devolution of further powers to the Assembly provided for in the draft Bill.