Tag: Roger Godsiff

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the recommendation in the Chief Schools Adjudicator for England’s Annual Report, published in December 2015, that her Department should clarify what is expected in guidance produced by relevant religious authorities for schools which give priority on the grounds of religion in their admission arrangements.

Nick Gibb

Admission authorities for all state-funded schools, including schools with a religious character, are required to comply with the School Admissions Code. This includes a requirement that ‘parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places for that school will be allocated’.

We support the right of schools with a religious designation to prioritise children of their faith. The code requires such schools, as a minimum, to prioritise looked after and previously looked after children of their faith ahead of other children. We have no plans to change this requirement.

The code can only be applied to bodies within the education sector. It cannot place requirements upon religious bodies. It does, however, require that when schools with a religious designation adopt admission criteria which prioritise children based on their faith, the schools must take account of religious activities as laid out by their religious authority.

Compliance with the code is enforced by the Schools Adjudicator. Where an objection is made and the adjudicator finds that the arrangements are unclear, unfair, or that they otherwise fail to comply with the code, the admission authority is required by law to change the policy.

The Government will shortly consult on a package of changes to the code which will both respond to the findings within the Chief Adjudicator’s Annual Reports and concerns raised by parents. That package will include measures to improve fairness and transparency.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, by what communication channels his Department has responded to the concerns expressed by junior doctors about the illustrative rotas, published by NHS Employers on 18 February 2016; for what reasons his Department used Facebook as one of those channels; and if he will make an assessment of the effect of the timing of that Facebook conversation on the number of junior doctors who were aware of that conversation.

Ben Gummer

NHS Employers, who are leading the introduction of the new contract, are engaging with juniors via a number of channels including Facebook. Issues around rotas raised by junior doctors are being dealt with in a variety of ways, including by updated Frequently Asked Questions that are published on the NHS Employers website. The Department continues to respond to individual correspondence it receives.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will respond to the conclusion of the Amnesty International Report 2015-16, the State of the World’s Human Rights, relating to the UK.

Dominic Raab

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 1 March 2016, which can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-02-25/28489/

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-23.

To ask the Prime Minister, whether representatives of the UK’s Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories will be invited to the anti-corruption summit in May.

Mr David Cameron

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Illford South (Mr Gapes) during my Oral Statement today.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-04-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many Chagossian families have not received any compensation from the public purse.

James Duddridge

The UK Government has paid out around £21m at current prices. This comprises two sums. An initial figure of £650,000 which the UK Government paid in 1973 to the Government of Mauritius towards the resettlement of those removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory since 1965. This was disbursed with accrued interest in 1977 and 1978 to 595 families. Furthermore, in 1982 the UK Government paid over a further £4m pursuant to an agreement with the Government of Mauritius which had established the Ilois Trust Fund Board to distribute the money for the benefit of the Chagossians. The government of Mauritius had also contributed some land to the Trust Fund and the government of India contributed £1m to it. At least 1,344 Chagossians received compensation through the Trust Fund, which was largely paid out between 1982 and 1984, with a final disbursement in 1987. The Government does not hold information about those it has not compensated.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-05-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether she plans to endorse the (a) commitment on explosive weapons at the World Humanitarian Summit and (b) other core commitments on protecting civilians in armed conflict.

Mr Desmond Swayne

The UK is working through the 32 Core Commitments proposed by the World Humanitarian Summit and will make a decision shortly on which we can align with.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-06-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether any limits are placed on the funds academies can spend on marketing.

Edward Timpson

Academy trusts must spend their funds on their charitable objectives to advance education. Within this limit, trusts are responsible for determining for themselves how to allocate their funds across different activities, including marketing, and for ensuring that their spending decisions achieve regularity, propriety and value for money. Trusts are best placed to make this decision, in light of their individual circumstances.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the UK intends to maintain the EU ban on neonicotinoids (a) before and (b) after the UK leaves the EU; and whether the Government plans to conduct a review of the evidence of damage to bees caused by those pesticides.

George Eustice

While it remains within the EU, the UK will continue to meet its obligations under EU law. This includes restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids. As part of the preparation for EU exit, we are considering future arrangements for pesticides. Our highest priority will continue to be the protection of people and the environment.

The Government remains of the view that decisions on the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides should be based on a careful scientific assessment of the risks. Pesticides that carry unacceptable risks to pollinators should not be authorised. The Government keeps the developing evidence on neonicotinoids under active review, advised by the independent Expert Committee on Pesticides.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will raise with his Australian counterpart the issue of the living conditions of refugees on Nauru.

Alok Sharma

We welcome Prime Minister Turnbull’s announcement that the Australian Government will examine complaints about the treatment of detainees at its immigration detention centre in Nauru. We would not want to prejudge the outcome of that process. The United Kingdom has previously raised these issues with the Australian Government, including at the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Australia in November 2015.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-10-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which convictions of UK citizens in foreign countries the UK is currently challenging; and what guidance his Department follows in deciding which convictions of UK citizens in overseas courts to challenge.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

​The British Government does not interfere in the legal systems of other countries by challenging convictions, any more than we would accept interference in our judicial system. We do, however, lobby strongly and consistently against the application of the death penalty, and against the carrying out of such sentences when they are imposed. We always lobby, where apt, to ensure the rule of law for fair trials.