Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hollern on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 26 January 2016 to Question 23620, what steps his Department has taken to implement new Government guidelines to help UK steel suppliers compete effectively for future defence projects; and what processes or policies have been changed as a result of those guidelines.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has issued new policy outlining the steps that should be taken to meet the Government’s aim of levelling the playing field for UK steel producers. This policy emphasises the importance of pre-market engagement, including through industry days, and signalling future requirements for steel. The MOD has also written to its largest defence contractors to highlight the new guidelines.

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

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

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether the building of the proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant is contingent on future decisions on the Hinkley Point C plant.

    Andrea Leadsom

    No application for development consent to build a new nuclear power station at Sizewell has yet been made. EDF have completed the first stage of local public consultation which is necessary before an application for development consent can be made, and have said they will make available more information on the next consultation stage once they have made a final investment decision on Hinkley.

  • 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 decision making process will be for the allocation of funding to (a) premises and (b) IT services related to applications to the Primary Care Trust Fund.

    Alistair Burt

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

  • Sharon Hodgson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Sharon Hodgson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sharon Hodgson on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many enforcement cases have been taken by which local weights and measures authorities since Chapter 15 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force.

    Nick Boles

    This information is not held centrally.

  • John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    John Redwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Redwood on 2016-06-20.

    To ask the Attorney General, what EU directives related to the Law Officers’ Departments’ responsibilities are awaiting transposition into UK law.

    Jeremy Wright

    There are no EU directives awaiting transposition into UK law for which the Law Officers’ Departments are responsible.

  • 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 definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on people who have been subjected to (a) discriminatory treatment in their community as a result of their sexual orientation, transgender identity, mental or other disability, (b) ethnic, racial, religious inter-communal violence including genocide, (c) political violence at the hand of non-state actors, (d) male rape and sexual violence and (e) human trafficking.

    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.

  • Nick Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Nick Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Smith on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of tax credits on farmers.

    George Eustice

    The Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this issue. However, the NFU has written directly to the Chancellor about tax payments and the National Living Wage. Ministers and Defra officials meet regularly with representatives of the farming industry to discuss a range of issues affecting farm businesses.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-12-08.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent steps the Government has taken to reduce the incidence of money-laundering in the UK.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government’s Anti-Money Laundering regime has a clear aim: to make the UK financial system a hostile environment for illicit finances, whilst minimising the burden on legitimate businesses and reducing the overall burden of regulation.

    In Europe, we worked hard during the negotiation of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive to encourage European partners to match our level of ambition in combatting money laundering. The Directive was formally adopted in June 2015 and it will be transposed into UK law by June 2017. The Government plans to publish a consultation on the changes early next year. The consultation will run for a full 12 weeks. We will consult on areas where the Directive gives us options or discretion on how we transpose its provisions.

    Domestically, HM Treasury and Home Office have worked closely together to draw up the UK’s first National Risk Assessment (NRA) of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, which was published on 15 October 2015. The NRA is the next step in ensuring that our anti-money laundering regime is robust, proportionate and responsive to emerging threats. The NRA found that while the UK’s response to money laundering and terrorist financing risks is well developed, more could be done to strengthen the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. The Treasury and Home Office are working together on a comprehensive Action Plan to address these issues, to ensure that the UK continues to lead the global fight against illicit financial flows.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-01-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 11 January 2016 to Question 21142, if he will make it his policy to make mandatory the recording of the diagnosis code in the accident and emergency data set.

    Jane Ellison

    Following a review of the Accident and Emergency Commissioning Data Set in 2014, a specific project was established to support the development of an improved data set for urgent and emergency care. This is a collaborative project which includes wide-ranging membership across our key partners. The mandatory recording of primary diagnosis within accident and emergency departments is expected to be considered within the scope of this project, which will report in due course.

  • Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hollern on 2016-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what percentage optimism bias his Department applied to the Successor Trident programme.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    Successor submarine is categorised as "Production of a Platform" for optimism bias purposes. In line with normal Ministry of Defence processes, the optimism bias will be addressed as part of the process of securing approval for the next investment point.

    I am withholding information for the current calculations for optimism bias, as the formal internal scrutiny process has not been completed.