Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been budgeted for covering the cost of the June 2014 Summit which will meet to deliberate on sexual violence in conflict by (1) the Department for International Development, (2) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (3) the Ministry of Defence, and (4) the Home Office.

    Baroness Warsi

    In accordance with our usual practice we will publish the final cost once it has been calculated post-Summit. Other departments are not covering the cost of the summit.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Israel concerning reports of two Palestinian youths killed by live fire, and one critically injured, during the Nakba Day demonstration.

    Baroness Warsi

    Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv raised the use of lethal force in this case with both the Israel Defence Force and the Israeli Border Police on 16 May.

    On 21 May, the local EU missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a local statement expressing deep concern about the deaths of two Palestinian youths on 15 May in the West Bank and emphasising the importance of such incidents being investigated thoroughly. They reiterated the need for security forces, whether Israeli or Palestinian, to refrain from the use of lethal force, except in cases where there is a real and imminent threat to life.

  • Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the UK Border Agency’s handling of the case of Aidah Asaba.

    James Brokenshire

    The general policy of the Home Office is not to disclose personal information
    about another person. This is because we have obligations under the Data
    Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information.

    The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need our protection
    and we consider every claim for asylum on its individual merits.
    We believe that those with no right to be in the UK should return to their home
    country and we will help those who wish to leave voluntarily. However, when
    they refuse to do so we will take steps to enforce their removal at the
    earliest opportunity.

  • Henry Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Henry Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what scientific purposes she has licensed procedures on animals that were likely to cause severe suffering since 2010; and what steps the Government is taking to reduce the number of animals experiencing severe suffering in scientific procedures.

    Norman Baker

    The information asked for is not held centrally and could only be obtained at
    disproportionate cost.

    The Government only authorises procedures on animals after rigorous checks.
    Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 there is a statutory
    requirement for scrutiny by, in the first instance, the Animal Welfare Ethical
    Review Body at the Establishment where the work will be performed, and then an
    assessment is made by the Home Office Inspectorate. In addition, projects are
    referred to the Animals in Science Committee for scrutiny where they propose
    the use of non-human primates in severe protocols and other projects that ministers
    consider require further consideration.

    One of the key factors in the assessment of licence applications is the
    harm-benefit analysis, which has been part of our assessment process since
    1986. The parameters considered in this analysis are described in Appendix I of
    the Operational Guidance to the 1986 Act. A harm-benefit analysis determines
    whether the proposed harms to the animals are justified by the likely benefits to be
    delivered from the project. Inspectors give advice on minimising harms during
    their assessment of project licence applications. Licensees have a legal
    responsibility to ensure that work is undertaken on animals in the least severe
    manner possible whilst delivering their scientific objectives. This year we
    are undertaking a review of the harm-benefit analysis process, with advice from
    the Animals in Science Committee, to determine if there are further refinements
    we can make to the process.

    I am committed to working to reduce the number of animals used in scientific
    procedures. The Coalition Commitment delivery plan "Working to reduce the use
    of animals in research" was published in February 2014. In particular, the Home
    Office Inspectorate is working with the Royal Society for the Prevention of
    Cruelty to Animals on methods of refinement of the most severe models to avoid
    or reduce animal suffering. This has included careful consideration of models
    of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, seizures, rheumatoid arthritis
    and sepsis. Inspectors are actively promulgating the recommendations from each
    of these reports.

    In addition, the Home Office has published advisory notes on recording and
    reporting actual severity, as required by the transposed European Directive
    from 2013. From data collected we will provide clarity on the burden of harm
    and, over time, should give an indication of the effectiveness of refinement
    methods, particularly for the most severe procedures.

    It is imporant to note that procedures classified as severe represent only a
    small percentage of total procedures.

  • Hugh Bayley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Hugh Bayley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hugh Bayley on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what estimate the UK Statistics Authority has made of the median gross weekly earnings of (a) men, (b) women and (c) all people employed (i) full-time and (ii) part-time in the areas covered by (A) York travel to work area, (B) City of York local authority area and (C) York Central constituency (1) in cash terms and (2) at constant prices in each year since 1997.

    Mr Nick Hurd

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

  • Hugh Bayley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Hugh Bayley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hugh Bayley on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber received how much funding from Local Enterprise Partnerships in each year since 2010-11.

    Michael Fallon

    The Regional Growth Fund has supported eight Local Enterprise Partnership-led (LEP) programmes in Yorkshire and Humber, 4 each in Rounds 3 and 5, with allocations totalling £95 million. So far £23.8 million has been paid to small and medium-sized enterprises which has achieved 987 jobs and £66.9 million in private sector leverage.

    The Yorkshire and Humber LEPs have also received a total of £72.9 million from the Growing Places Fund to support infrastructure projects resulting in the creation of jobs, housing, commercial floorspace and businesses. Thus far, the LEPs have allocated this to 34 projects which will lead to the creation of 25,500 jobs, 4,900 housing units, 1.5 million sqm commercial floorspace, and 320 businesses.

  • Graeme Morrice – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Graeme Morrice – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graeme Morrice on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what penalties his Department is able to levy on workplace capability assessment providers who miss targets.

    Mike Penning

    The number of Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Reassessment Work Capability Assessment referrals to Atos Healthcare in each of the last three years is as follows:

    01/06/2011 to 31/05/2012 – 1,553,839

    01/06/2012 to 31/05/2013 – 1,742,593

    01/06/2013 to 31/05/2014 – 1,495,159

    For the period October 2008 to May 2014, there have been 3,431,528 Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Reassessment cases processed by Atos Healthcare within 35 days.

    The latest (April 2014) national Employment and Support Allowance Work Capability Assessment Actual Average Clearance Time (AACT) is 118.9 days.

    There are a range of financial remedies available within the Medical Services contract to address service level failure. However this is a matter of commercial in confidence between the Department of Work and Pensions and its supplier Atos Healthcare.

    The number of Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Allowance cases that were referred to Atos Healthcare processed and returned within 35 days in each of the last three years is as follows:

    a). UK

    01/06/2011 to 31/05/2012 – 767,674

    01/06/2012 to 31/05/2013 – 1,073,987

    01/06/2013 to 31/05/2014 – 249,305

    b). Scotland

    01/06/2011 to 31/05/2012 – 97,951

    01/06/2012 to 31/05/2013 – 133,923

    01/06/2013 to 31/05/2014 – 58,326

    c). West Lothian Local Authority Area

    The information requested is not available

  • David Ruffley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Ruffley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Ruffley on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people were arrested and charged with possession of class (a) A, (b) B and (c) C drugs in (i) Bury St Edmunds, (ii) Suffolk and (iii) England and Wales in each of the last five years.

    Norman Baker

    The information requested is not available centrally. Data on arrests for drug
    offences reported to the Home Office cannot be separated to identify arrests
    for possession of specific drugs.

    Data on resultant charges are not collected centrally.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, where his Department plans to base the Watchkeeper remotely piloted air systems following completion of training at Salisbury Plain and West Wales Airport.

    Mr Mark Francois

    Under current plans Watchkeeper remotely piloted air systems will be located at Larkhill with 32nd and 47th Regiments Royal Artillery.

  • John Mann – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    John Mann – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Mann on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what criteria his Department uses to assess the saleability of new houses when determining the potential for five-year housing supply.

    Nick Boles

    The National Planning Policy Framework requires local authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific, deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

    Footnote 11 of the Framework sets out that, to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Further guidance on viability is available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/viability-guidance/