Tag: Steve McCabe

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-04-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what responsibilities local authorities have to ensure that asylum seekers who are leaving care they entered as a child receive alternative support once they reach adulthood.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    Unaccompanied asylum seeking children must be provided with the same support as for any care leaver, as set out in Volume 3 of ‘The Children Act Guidance and Regulations: Planning Transition to Adulthood for Care Leavers’.[1]

    Financial support for looked after unaccompanied asylum seeking children should reflect their needs as eligible care leavers and their immigration needs. As for any relevant child, once an unaccompanied asylum seeking child leaves care or reaches the age of 18, a personal advisor must be appointed to support them.

    [1]http://resources.leavingcare.org/uploads/c4f7aeaf941cdefb8f4a18f478aa1f19.pdf

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what advice his Department provides to local authorities when a school governing body is found guilty of disability discrimination.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    The advice that the Department for Education provides to local authorities in relation to disability discrimination is contained in its publication ‘Equality Act 2010 – Advice for School Leaders, School Staff, Governing Bodies and Local Authorities’, which is available at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269341/Equality_Act_2010_-_advice.pdf.

    The publication does not advise local authorities in relation to governing bodies that are found to be in breach of the provisions set out in the Equality Act 2010. Consideration of and remedy for disability discrimination is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many consultancy groups currently have global contracts with her Department as development implementers.

    Justine Greening

    Procurement tendering processes conducted by my department are completed in accordance with EU directives. Contracts are awarded following a competitive tendering process. Invitations to tender are specific to the nature of the intervention required.

    DFID has no contracts providing global services.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the policy is of the Passport Office on the passing of information on the status of a delayed passport application when dealing with correspondence from an hon. Member acting on behalf of a constituent.

    James Brokenshire

    Her Majesty’s Passport Office’s policy is to make available the same
    information to MPs and their constituency secretaries as they would
    to their constituents. On receipt of correspondence on behalf of a constituent, it
    is deemed that the constituent has provided authority for their MP to act on
    their behalf. This applies to written, e-mailed and telephone correspondence.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what guidance his Department provides on how much funding from the Local Government Finance Settlement local authorities should allocate to virtual headteachers.

    Brandon Lewis

    Both Revenue Support Grant and retained business rates, the two local authority funding streams directly included within the Local Government Finance Settlement, are unringfenced, therefore, authorities can use them to fund any service, provided they meet their statutory duties. It is up to authorities to decide how to set their budgets, taking into account local priorities.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-04-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps he is taking to ensure that the new Fuel Poverty Target will address the specific needs of people affected by conditions such as muscular dystrophy and neuromuscular conditions.

    Gregory Barker

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough on 26 February 2014, Official Report, Column 416W.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what representations he has received on extending the powers provided to the National College for Teaching and Leadership for the investigation of historical incidents of abuse; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    The Secretary of State for Education has received no representations on extending the powers provided to the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) for investigation of historical incidents of abuse.

    The NCTL’s remit sits within a broad safeguarding framework. The investigation of incidents of abuse by the NCTL historically or current will depend on the nature of the abuse. Where incidents of abuse relate to issues of child protection these would not ordinarily be matters that the NCTL would be directly involved in.

    All employers of people working with children have a statutory duty to refer to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) all individuals who have been:

    1. convicted or cautioned for a relevant offence;
    2. engaged in conduct that has harmed a child or put them at risk of harm; or
    3. deemed to have satisfied the ‘harm test’ in relation to children, i.e. there has been no relevant conduct but a risk of harm to a child still exists.

    The DBS will then consider whether to bar that person from working with children. Alongside this duty, where a teacher has been dismissed or resigned in the face of dismissal for a serious conduct matter, employers have a statutory duty to consider referring that teacher to the NCTL. In circumstances where the DBS decides to bar an individual any ongoing NCTL case would be discontinued. The NCTL primarily takes to a conclusion cases which have not met the DBS threshold for barring.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will amend the access to work scheme to enable deaf people to employ a full-time salaried support worker.

    Mike Penning

    The Access to Work programme currently allows for support to be organised in this way if it offers the most cost effective and practical solution and there is clear customer need for that level of support. We are taking a close look at the Access to Work programme over the next three months, focussing on how we can assist the largest number of disabled paople in work. We will incude in that process a consideration of how best to address the needs of customers requiring support for a large number of hours each week on an on-going basis.

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what compensation the Passport Office provides to British passport holders who have faced increases on the cost of their flights because they have had to wait an extended period for a completed passport application.

    James Brokenshire

    HM Passport Office’s policy on compensation can be downloaded from the website
    at:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compensation-and-complaints-handling

  • Steve McCabe – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    Steve McCabe – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    The speech made by Steve McCabe, the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, in the House of Commons on 30 June 2022.

    I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for securing the debate and congratulate him on an excellent speech. In the interest of transparency, I am the chair of Labour Friends of Israel and a member of the British Committee for Iran Freedom.

    I suspect that the outcome of the talks in Vienna will be crucial in shaping the future of the international community’s relations with Iran. Whatever that outcome, however, we must develop a clear-sighted and comprehensive strategy to tackle the challenges we face, including the many that the current talks are unlikely to resolve. As we have heard, the malign activities of those who control the Iranian regime extend far beyond its nuclear ambitions and include: its ballistic missile programme; support for terrorist proxies across the middle east; the dangerous influence and activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; Tehran’s insidious disinformation campaigns; its policy of state hostage taking; and the suffering of the Iranian people over four decades.

    In the face of those challenges, the JCPOA, which was negotiated in 2015, looks pretty limited. Despite the name, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is clearly not comprehensive and, as we heard, it actually exacerbated certain problems by freeing up extra resources for the mullahs. The Trump Administration’s unilateral withdrawal in 2018 dealt a severe blow to the deal, but Iran’s record of systematically violating the agreement had already highlighted its inadequacy.

    Those violations include, as we have heard, the decision to enrich uranium beyond the agreed cap and the deliberate obstruction of the IAEA inspectors. Iran had already made clear its contempt for the agreement by turning off some of the inspectors’ monitoring equipment. Officials said a couple of weeks ago that they expect to lose any continuity of knowledge regarding the progress of Iran’s activity because of the obstruction they are facing from it. Even if we had a deal up and running, the inspectors would not be able to do their job.

    Some believe that a new agreement might provide a measure of medium-term restraint on Iran’s nuclear programme; others have their doubts. As we have heard, the Institute for Science and International Security has concluded that it is on the verge of obtaining the bomb. The appointment of Mohammad Eslami, the main liaison with Pakistani freelance nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, as the new head of Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organisation is the clearest signal we could have of Iran’s real intentions. That is why I am sceptical of the idea that those people will negotiate in good faith and keep their word.

    As the LFI argues in its recent pamphlet on the subject, the UK needs to develop realistic strategies to address the nuclear threat and the other Iranian issues. Iran’s ballistic missile programme is the biggest in the middle east and makes it the first country to develop a missile with a 2,000 km range without having first developed nuclear capability. It is also the only country that routinely threatens to wipe another nation off the face of the map—the destruction of the state of Israel is the official policy of Iran’s leaders.

    As we have heard, as well as threatening Israel’s existence, Iran is responsible for waging war, terrorism and violence—mostly through its proxies—in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. The UK has rightly banned some of those proxies, but not all their front organisations. The Government should do more and look at proscribing Hezbollah and Hamas.

    As we have also heard, Iran’s terrorist activities are supported by the regime’s ideological army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which not only leads on meddling in the region but brutally represses ordinary Iranians. Its influence has expanded rapidly in recent years, including over a variety of operations across Europe. I believe, as others do, that the UK should join our allies the United States and proscribe the IRGC for the dangerous terrorist group it is.

    Iranian disinformation efforts, run by the IRGC, have significantly expanded since 2015. There is mounting evidence of interference in UK domestic politics, including last year’s Scottish Parliament elections. The UK Government should urgently draw up proposals for how they intend to combat and disrupt that interference.

    Iran’s policy of arbitrarily detaining foreign nationals, most prominently Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, demands co-ordinated international action. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must be bold enough to call this activity what it is—state hostage taking. We should use the UK’s position at the UN to lead and develop a proper response from the international community.

    We should also never forget that the Iranian regime’s most long-standing and long-suffering victims are the Iranian people themselves. We can and should do more to support the victims of some of the most unimaginable human rights abuses. I think it is both curious and shocking that, nearly two years since it was established, the Magnitsky Act is yet to be applied to a single Iranian individual or entity. There are many Iranian politicians and officials guilty of human rights abuses, including prison governors, military personnel, regional governors and others. Ebrahim Raisi himself stands accused of being responsible for a programme of mass killings in Iran.

    Whatever the outcome of the nuclear talks in Vienna, the threats posed by this regime to the Iranian people, the peoples of the middle east, our own country and democracies around the world will not go away. UK foreign policy should reflect the reality of the situation. Any revived JCPOA that only deals with the nuclear programme is probably not worth the paper it is written on. The desire of those who wish to resurrect the JCPOA should not detract from the urgent need to recognise and develop a smart, proportionate and comprehensive strategy to resist Iran’s terrorist activity around the globe.

    Should it prove impossible to secure a satisfactory deal, which I think is pretty inevitable, I concur with the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that the UK and other western participants should refer the regime’s nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, and we should immediately seek to reinstate the six resolutions that were suspended in good faith because of the JCPOA.