The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2016-01-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many foreign national offenders are in prison in England and Wales.
Andrew Selous
This information is published and the latest figures, from April to June 2015, can be be found using the link below.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2015
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2016-04-12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information he holds on when Greece will have taken steps to ensure that its asylum system is compliant with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on 21 January 2011 in the case of MSS vs Belgium and Greece.
Mr David Lidington
The Asylum Agency in Greece was founded in 2011 in response to criticism of the previous system and the case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece. The same law adapted Greek legislation to Directive 2008/115/EC on returning illegally residing third country nationals and related issues.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece under the “enhanced supervision” procedure. They last considered it in December 2015 and will do so again in December 2016. There was no debate in 2015, which means the Secretariat were satisfied with the information Greece had provided.
The UN’s Universal Periodic Review of Greece will take place in early May. The review will cover the full range of human rights in Greece, including the asylum system. Greece’s self-assessment will be available on the website of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The parliamentary question asked by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many (a) armoured vehicles, (b) anti-tank weapons and (c) multiple-launch rocket systems his Department has donated to Ukraine for use against Russian forces in that country.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The UK is the second largest donor in military aid to Ukraine. We have gifted almost 200 armoured vehicles and more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. We have also delivered a number of multiple launch rocket systems to counter Putin’s brutal use of long-range artillery, but, for reasons of operational security, I am unable to give a precise quantity.
Mr Hollobone
His Majesty’s Government have led Europe in arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the equipment and personnel losses incurred by the Russian armed forces as a result of the deployment of British weaponry in theatre?
Mr Wallace
Although we do not specifically collect data on UK use of weapons, we can say that we estimate that more than 100,000 Russians are either dead, injured or have deserted. Russia has also lost 4,500 armoured vehicles, 63 fixed-wing aircraft, 70 helicopters, 150 unmanned aerial vehicles, 12 naval vessels and more than 600 artillery systems, and failed to capture a single one of its major objectives from day one. President Putin’s three-day war, or special operation, turns out to have been a disaster for him and his army.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Ukrainians have been buying Mitsubishi L200 pick-up trucks from west country farmers to adapt them for use as impromptu fighting vehicles. As the first Boxer armoured vehicles arrive with the British Army in the coming months, what consideration are the Government giving to passing some of the retiring Warrior infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, the type of weaponry and vehicles that the Ukrainians are buying off the shelf like that is not necessarily because of a lack of need elsewhere, but because of the speed and innovation that they require. When we transfer something like a Warrior armoured personnel carrier, it is tracked, it is—if my memory serves me right—28 tonnes, and it comes with a huge long logistical supply chain. We are very interested in making sure that we keep them supplied with equipment that they can use almost immediately rather than having to deal with the huge logistical tail that will come with it. We focus on giving them what we can. We have obviously supported the renovation of armoured vehicles and we will continue to do so.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The House will know that supplies of British, American and other western equipment have been vital in helping our Ukrainian friends to protect themselves against the continuing and merciless Russian attacks, and I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for all that they have done and continue to do. Does he agree that we and our allies must help our Ukrainian friends not just to take out the drones and missiles, which means supplying them with anti-aircraft systems and fixed-wing aircraft to help shoot them down, but to take out the launch sites of those missiles and drones by supplying the Ukrainians with the use of longer-range missile systems, such as army tactical missile systems? That is the way, truly, to protect our Ukrainian friends and to bring the war to an end as soon as possible.
Mr Wallace
Without my right hon. Friend’s support of me and Ukraine, none of this would have been possible. I place on record my great appreciation of his support through that process. He is right that the Russians are taking advantage of the short-range capability of the Ukrainian armed forces by using Iranian kamikaze drones and, against all the rules of law, including the Geneva conventions, by the mass targeting of critical civilian infrastructure. That is not only a war crime, but a war crime that we must see does not go unpunished. I constantly review the weapons systems we could provide; I hear his call for ATACMS from the United States, but we too have in our armoury potential weapon systems that are longer range and, should the Russians continue to target civilian areas and break those Geneva conventions, I will be open-minded about what we do next.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
At a recent event in Monkstown Boxing Club in my constituency, which was arranged to show support for Ukrainians located in the greater Belfast area, there was huge support and thanks for the work our Government have done to help Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russians. The question is this: we are supplying equipment, but there is talk now that we are only supplying very limited ammunition for that equipment. Is the Secretary of State convinced, first, that we are supplying what is needed and, secondly, that we have the capacity to supply what is needed in the future?
Mr Wallace
We are providing ammunition, although some of it is in the form not necessarily of mass shells, but of more sophisticated weapons systems such as Brimstone missiles or Saab Thales next generation light anti-tank weapons, made in Belfast. We continue to supply those and indeed resupply ourselves. For the areas where we do not have something, we have set up an international fund with the Danish, which has so far raised €600 million, and we will be announcing the first block of purchases from the international community or from production lines to make sure we help Ukraine to get through 2023.
The speech made by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Ofsted school inspections.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank Mr Speaker for giving me the honour of holding this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I am delighted that we are joined in the Public Gallery by the headteacher of Bishop Stopford School, Jill Silverthorne, and the deputy head, Damien Keane, who recognise the importance of the issues I wish to raise. I am grateful to them for travelling to London today.
May I start by praising the Minister, who is one of the Ministers I hold in the highest regard? He has a distinguished record in education. He was shadow schools Minister from 2005 to 2010. He was a Minister in the Department for Education from 2010 to 2012. He had his second coming from 2014 to 2021 and his third coming on 26 October this year. That is 15 years of Front-Bench experience in opposition and in government. We are very lucky to have him as schools Minister. He cares about the subject and I am grateful to him for being here today and for his genuine involvement in this issue.
I wish to raise the recent Ofsted inspection of Bishop Stopford School in Kettering, which resulted in a downgrade from “outstanding” to “requires improvement.” May I declare my interest, as one of my children attends Bishop Stopford School? However, I raise the matter not because of my child, but because I think a genuine injustice has been done with this inspection.
Bishop Stopford is a non-selective secondary school and sixth form with academy status in Kettering. Located in the Headlands, the school has 1,500 pupils. At the heart of all it does is a Christian ethos, and its core values are faith, responsibility, compassion, truth and justice. That provides stability for pupils in an ever-changing world. In the light of that ethos, the school’s aim is quite simple:
“to provide the highest quality education for every student.”
The Minister has seen the school’s pupils in action. The school’s brass band performed at the Music for Youth Proms in London, in November. Students were outstanding in the performance in every respect—behaviour, attitude, performance, kindness to each other and helping staff. They did the school proud in every way possible and were tremendous ambassadors for the school. Yet Ofsted’s view is that personal development at the school “requires improvement”.
The Ofsted inspection was done on 28 and 29 June 2022. The overall recommendation was “requires improvement”. Quality of education was “good”. Sixth form provision was “good”. Behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management were graded “requires improvement”. I am very concerned about the way in which the inspection was carried out. From the information I have received, I believe not only that the correct procedures were not followed, but that the inspection team deliberately set out to engineer a downgrade in the school’s Ofsted rating from “outstanding” to “requires improvement”. That is the equivalent of one of the highest scoring teams in the premier league being relegated straight to the conference.
I support rigorous Ofsted inspections of schools, which raise school standards. Until now, I have had every confidence in Ofsted’s abilities to inspect schools in line with proper process and to challenge them where improvements can be made, but I have to tell the Minister that it is my strong view that this Ofsted inspection has gone wrong. It should be quashed, and a fresh inspection undertaken with different inspectors. I know that this is a serious request, and I do not make it lightly.
The evidence I have heard from the headteacher, the deputy head and pupils at the school is compelling. I believe that the inspection team sent in by Ofsted went rogue. In effect, Ofsted has sent in an educational inspection hit squad with a pre-arranged agenda to downgrade this faith-based school, whatever it found on its visit. In interviews with pupils, the inspection team disparaged the school’s Christian ethos. One year 7 boy was asked, “Do you think this is a white, middle-class school?” A year 10 girl was asked, “Do you feel uncomfortable about walking upstairs when wearing a skirt?” I ask the Minister, are these questions appropriate for an Ofsted inspection?
Furthermore, the new downgraded rating for the school was leaked by Ofsted to the local community in breach of Ofsted’s own procedures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his initiative and assiduousness on behalf of the school. I am shocked at the allegations that he has made, and I see the problems there among those of a certain faith group. Does he feel, as I do, that this inspection has increased anxieties and stress among the teachers, parents and others involved? He has asked for the whole thing to be done again, and that is probably the best thing to do, because what has happened is clearly wrong.
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a Christian gentleman. He understands the importance of a Christian ethos in schools, but it seems that some Ofsted inspectors do not share those values. In this case, it seems that they have deliberately set out to downgrade the school, and the hon. Gentleman is right that that is having a devastating impact on the teachers, pupils and parents, who feel that the inspection has gone wrong and that they have all been treated extremely unfairly. It appears that, unable to criticise the school’s educational achievements, inspectors have pursued an agenda against a top-performing school with a Christian ethos by engineering criticisms of the behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management criteria.
I thought that this matter was so serious that it should be brought to the immediate attention of the Department for Education, so I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor on 11 October. I am afraid that I do not think that Ofsted can be relied on to judge its own homework. The deficiencies in the inspection of this school are extremely serious. In effect, no one is inspecting the inspectors, and they can basically do what they like.
On the same day, I wrote to Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman, yet all I received was a one-page letter from the assistant regional director of the east midlands on 20 October saying that they noted my concerns but that nothing else would be done and that they would just go along with the complaints process in which the school was engaged. I do not regard that as satisfactory, when a Member of Parliament has raised genuine concerns.
Let us look at the quality of education at the school. On the Department’s latest unvalidated educational attainment data, Bishop Stopford School ranks 106th out of all 6,761 secondary schools in the country and is in the top 1.5%. Let us look at the key headline measures of educational attainment. On the EBacc scores, in the data comparing Bishop Stopford School with schools that Ofsted has rated “outstanding” since September 2021, the school is the highest performing non-selective school. Some 94% of the school’s students entered for the EBacc, which is massive. In Northamptonshire, the second highest school is at 79%. The national average is 39%, and the Government’s ambition is 75%.
On progress 8 scores, which show how much progress pupils at this school made between the end of key stage 2 and the end of key stage 4, out of 3,721 selective and non-selective schools with a progress 8, the school is No. 115, which is in the top 3%. On the attainment 8 scores, which are based on how well pupils have performed in up to eight qualifications, there are 3,768 non-selective schools, and Bishop Stopford School is 110th, which is in the top 3%. On the basic five GCSEs, including English and maths, Bishop Stopford School is at 70%. Of the 126 schools ranked as “requiring improvement”, Bishop Stopford School is fourth, with the range 0% to 96%. Of the 52 schools rated “outstanding”, the school is 27th, with a range of 45% to 100%, and it is fifth for the non-selective mixed schools in this category.
In terms of the number of pupils who stayed in education or went into employment after finishing key stage 4, of all the selective and non-selective schools previously rated as “outstanding”, Bishop Stopford School is ranked 16th in the whole country. Of non-selective mixed-sex schools, it is fourth in the whole country, with 98% staying in education or going into employment. Ofsted partially recognises this educational record:
“Most pupils enjoy attending Bishop Stopford School and value the teaching that they receive. The school is ‘unapologetically academic’ and leaders have high expectations of what pupils should achieve.”
Yet Ofsted only gave the school a “good” rating in this area.
The mantra about making a judgment about the quality of education is explicitly stated as depending on the three Is: intent, implementation and impact. In essence, this assesses whether a school is clear about what it wishes to achieve with its curriculum, how well that intent is implemented and what its impact is. The only way this can be easily measured is through the empirical data: results, destinations and attendance. The impact of the school’s curriculum is, once again, abundantly clear in this validated data.
If the school is enabling its young people to be so successful and to progress to high-quality destinations, there has to be a disconnect somewhere. If the school is performing so poorly, as the report suggests, how could it possibly generate outcomes that can only be described as excellent, even among the schools Ofsted has judged to be “outstanding”?
The school has followed the Ofsted complaints process, and it got a reply dated 9 November from the senior regional inspector. The school complained about the judgment on quality of education. Ofsted said that a common area that needs to be improved is using assessment to adapt teaching so that identified gaps are addressed. It said:
“modern foreign languages and the mathematics curriculum are not as securely embedded as other curriculum areas”,
and the complaint was not upheld.
The school complained about the judgment on behaviour and attitudes. Ofsted acknowledged that
“behaviour was calm and orderly around the school.”
In its report, it said that the school deals with low-level disruption when it occurs, yet in the inspection on the day the Ofsted inspectors said that there was no low-level disruption. The inspection team had a particular concern about bullying and the use of derogatory language. In this case, the grade descriptor that needed to be considered was:
“Leaders, staff and pupils create a positive environment in which bullying is not tolerated.”
The inspection team said that that criterion was not fully met, and the complaint was not upheld. Parents are in disbelief that the inspection team could come to that conclusion.
The school complained about the Ofsted judgment on personal development. Ofsted said:
“inspectors considered how the Christian ethos and wider curriculum supported pupils’ personal development”,
yet the inspection team raised the Christian ethos only twice, both times negatively.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Surely the aim of the equality, diversity and inclusion statement should be to ensure schools are abiding by the necessary equality regulation in legislation. I am concerned that, in some cases, Ofsted appears to take it beyond its original intention by judging schools against its own ideas about what life in modern Britain should be. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those concerns. I do share them, as do pupils at the school. I had the privilege of speaking to some of the pupils who engaged with the inspectors. They were expecting the inspectors to ask about the curriculum and their academic studies, but they were probed particularly about the Christian ethos. One pupil, very maturely, responded: “It is not so much about Christianity as about Christian values.” That was a very mature and sensible response.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful and interesting speech, and I thank him for securing this debate. Does he agree that it would be more sensible if Ofsted inspections were not so narrowly focused on academic achievement? Although that is important, and the school clearly has a fantastic academic record, Ofsted should have a more holistic approach and look at things such as how schools work extremely hard to build social and emotional resilience in children and young people and to create a happy and healthy learning environment, which gives pupils the skills and values they need to be well-rounded citizens?
Mr Hollobone
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for making that very sensible point. That is right. The school clearly has a Christian ethos. I am not saying that all the pupils and parents are Christians, but this is about Christian values and the key themes I mentioned at the beginning, which we surely all share: responsibility, compassion, truth and justice. Yet it seems that this inspection team regards those values as inappropriate for a school because they are Christian. The parents and I find that outrageous.
The pupil said that when they responded to the inspector’s question, “The inspector shut my comment down. He made me feel silly, embarrassed and a bit stupid.” Pupils described the interaction with inspectors as “intense”, “uncomfortable”, “tense” and “awkward”. Those are the pupils themselves telling me about their experiences with the inspectors. Something is not right here, and I want the Minister to take that on board.
The school complained about the judgment on sixth form provision. Ofsted said:
“Inspectors spoke to groups of students. They raised the point that they were well prepared for university, but other routes were not as well covered. While I agree that there is no statutory requirement for work experience, it was clear from the evidence that preparation for the wider world of work was not as secure as other areas of students’ wider development.”
That was Ofsted’s comment. However, 98% of pupils go on to education or go straight into employment. Nevertheless, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The school also complained about the overall inspection report, the overall judgment, and the inspection process, but all those complaints were not upheld. All the points that the school made to Ofsted were dismissed.
The breach of confidentiality point has not been addressed by Ofsted in any satisfactory way. Ofsted said to the school:
“It was explained that unless you were able to provide any further evidence, we would be unable to look into this any further.”
Yet the headteacher gave Ofsted the names of two local schools that had heard of the downgrade before the report was published. A serious breach of confidentiality has not been investigated properly and has effectively been dismissed.
On the comments about
“a white middle class school”
and
“walking upstairs when wearing a skirt”,
Ofsted said:
“There is no record in the evidence of the exact line of questioning from the team inspector that you referred to. Having spoken to the team inspector, they cannot recall asking the two questions that are cited.”
I have to say to the Minister that I spoke with the pupils involved and they confirmed what was said, so clearly something is not right here.
The headteacher wrote a measured letter to parents to reassure them on the back of the publication of the report, stressing the school’s outstanding academic performance. He said that
“student performance last summer was outstanding”,
and that that was based on the Department for Education’s own statistics. He went on to say:
“GCSE results place us in the top 3% of schools nationally. A Level performance data is still provisional, but with 43% of grades awarded at A and A*”.
On behaviour and attitudes, the headteacher rightly said:
“External visitors to our school almost without exception comment on the impressive behaviour and engagement of our students. On the inspection days themselves, students’ behaviour was exemplary, and the five members of the inspection team unanimously agreed that they saw no low-level disruption during the inspection.”
That is not what the report said. He went on to say, rightly:
“Unfortunately, this detail has not been included in the report, but we will be sharing with students that we were immensely proud of the way they conducted themselves and upheld our core values in the inspection—and continue to do so.”
I have to say to the Minister that since the report was published 500 parents have been in touch with the school to offer their support and basically they say that they do not believe what Ofsted is saying and do not respect the downgrade to “requires improvement”. However, I think there is a wider agenda going on here, because although I believe that Bishop Stopford has been picked on, recent information has come out that more than four fifths of “outstanding” schools inspected last year have lost their top grade after the exemption from inspection was removed. Also, the chief inspector herself said that the outcomes from the first full year of inspection since it was scrapped:
“show that removing a school from scrutiny does not make it better.”
A fifth of schools, including Bishop Stopford, dropped at least two grades.
The Minister will know that schools rated “outstanding” were exempt from reinspection between 2012 and 2020. The exemption was lifted in 2020 after Ofsted warned that over a thousand schools had not been inspected in at least 10 years. Ofsted itself has said that 308 of the 370 previously exempt schools had a graded inspection that resulted in a downgrade, which is 83%: 62% became “good”; 17% fell to “requires improvement”, including Bishop Stopford; and 4% fell from “outstanding” to “inadequate”. This is a power grab from Ofsted, saying to the Government, “You must let us inspect all schools all the time.” I am not sure that is appropriate, given the level of distress it can cause to excellent schools such as Bishop Stopford when an inspection goes wrong.
On behalf of the school, parents and local residents in Kettering, I ask the Minister to quash the report and send in a fresh inspection team. Let us have a proper inquiry into the leaking of the downgrade. If quashing is not possible within the Minister’s powers, can we have a reinspection of the school at the earliest opportunity? I would not want that grade hanging over the school for potentially the next 30 months. At the very least, can we have a meeting between the Minister himself, the chief inspector, the headteacher and myself as the local parliamentary representative, so that local concerns that the inspection went wrong can be relayed in the clearest possible terms to Ofsted?
The parliamentary question asked by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What plans the commission has to consider the report from the National Audit Office on road investment strategy 2.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
The National Audit Office’s report on road enhancements has recently been published and it is excellent. The Public Accounts Commission itself, in line with its statutory duty, has no plans to examine the report, but many of the NAO’s reports are taken up by the Public Accounts Committee and while, of course, it is a matter for the PAC to determine its own programme, I will draw the interest of my hon. Friend to the Chair of the PAC.
Mr Hollobone
Delays to projects in road investment strategy 2 primarily because of development consent difficulties have meant that fewer road projects have been delivered than planned and at a higher cost. Should the commission study the report, may I urge my hon. Friend to examine the potential negative impact on the next road investment strategy—RIS 3—of future road projects being shelved because of hold-ups and cost pressures in RIS 2?
Mr Bacon
In its September 2020 delivery plan, National Highways expected that it would spend £5.5 billion in the third road strategy on projects approved since 2020. Since then, this has increased to £11.5 billion largely because of project and planning delays. Taxpayers may well feel scandalised that they are paying more money and getting fewer road enhancements. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the proposed junction 10a of the A14 east of Kettering and I urge him to consider pressing his case with Ministers as I know he was doing as recently as last week.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2015-10-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect on the provision of medical supplies to NHS facilities in (a) Northamptonshire, (b) the East Midlands and (c) England of the introduction of the new IT system at NHS Supply Chain’s Regional Distribution Centre in Rugby.
George Freeman
NHS Supply Chain services are delivered by a logistics partner DHL, under the management of NHS Business Services Authority. DHL has been upgrading the main logistics IT system across its warehousing network and on 5 October 2015 commenced the upgrade at its warehouse in Rugby. Various technical issues have been encountered and, as a result, DHL has had to implement contingency measures.
Whilst there has been an administrative impact on some National Health Service trusts, we are not aware of any impact on ‘front line services’ in Northamptonshire and the East Midlands – the area served by the Rugby warehouse. DHL has been able to meet requirements from its remaining network and it expects all current issues to be resolved by 23 October 2015. When the issues have been resolved the NHS Business Services Authority will then address any ‘due compensation’ to NHS trusts affected.
The parliamentary question asked by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.
I believe that the situation is now so bad and chaotic that the Minister should consider his position.
On Friday, North Northampton Council, Northants police and other local agencies had an online meeting with the Home Office and Serco regarding the potential use of the 51-bed Royal hotel in Kettering, slap bang in the middle of the town centre. Serious environmental health issues, including mould and no kitchen facilities, were raised. Northants police raised serious concerns about community safety and the vulnerability of the asylum seekers. The Home Office and Serco officials agreed that the hotel would not be used until those issues were properly addressed. Yesterday, the council was advised that 41 asylum seekers had been moved into the hotel on Sunday afternoon, without any notification at all, and that could rise to 80. No biometric of previous offending history data has been shared with the local police. It is totally, 100% unacceptable.
On 27 October, I asked the Minister face to face for a meeting. I asked him again on the Floor of the House last Wednesday. No such meeting has been forthcoming. This is a wrong-headed decision. The local police, the local council and I have been misled, and I have no confidence at all that the Home Office, Serco or the Minister have the first clue what they are doing in relation to asylum seeker relocation.
Robert Jenrick
I will be happy to make some inquiries and come back to my hon. Friend.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2014-06-25.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the annual cost of imprisoning foreign national offenders in UK prisons has been in each of the last three years.
Jeremy Wright
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) does not calculate separately the annual cost of imprisoning foreign nationals in England and Wales. NOMS does not analyse cost by prisoner nationality, as costs recorded on the NOMS central accounting system do not allow identification of costs attributable to holding individual prisoners.
All prison costs for Scotland and Northern Ireland are a devolved matter and the responsibility of the relevant Minister.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2015-01-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether his Department has received any expression of interest in pursuing shale gas development and exploration in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) the borough of Kettering.
Matthew Hancock
There are currently no petroleum licences in effect in any part of Northamptonshire. We launched a new round of onshore licensing last year and received applications in October. I cannot comment on the nature of the bids or the locations for which plans might be being considered while DECC’s assessment of the applications continues. However we are aiming to be in a position to announce licence offers shortly.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2014-04-01.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many foreign national prisoners were transferred to secure detention in their home country under (a) compulsory and (b) voluntary prisoner transfer agreements in each of the last five years.
Jeremy Wright
The table below sets out the number of prisoners who have transferred from a prison in England and Wales to a prison in their state of nationality in the last five years on both a compulsory and voluntary basis.
|
Year of Transfer |
Voluntary Transfer |
Compulsory |
|
2009 |
40 |
|
|
2010 |
46 |
|
|
2011 |
33 |
|
|
2012 |
40 |
|
|
2013 |
38 |
5 |
With the implementation of the Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (The EU PTA) by the United Kingdom in December 2011 prisoners can be transferred on a voluntary or compulsory basis. Since the implementation of the EU PTA in December 2011 a total 18 EU Member States, including the United Kingdom, have brought the EU PTA in to force.
Compulsory Prisoner Transfer Agreements can be difficult to negotiate, but we remain determined to secure them wherever possible. In January this year we signed a compulsory transfer agreement with Nigeria and last year we signed an agreement with Albania. We expect to see prisoner transfers to both these countries before the end of this year.
We are also working hard to increase the number of Foreign National Offenders removed from prison under the Early Removal Scheme (ERS) and the Tariff Expired Removal Scheme (TERS). In 2013, we removed nearly 2,000 FNOs under ERS and under TERS, which we introduced in May 2012, we have removed 237 prisoners to date.
The numbers reported here are drawn from a Prison Service Case Tracking System. Care is taken when processing these cases but the figures may be subject to inaccuracies associated with any recording system.