Tag: Thomas Docherty

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2015-01-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU member states on proposals to amend EU treaties.

Mr David Lidington

I have already visited 24 Member States to discuss EU reform with my counterparts, most recently, Warsaw on 6 March. Leaders across Europe agree that the EU needs to change. We are setting out the case for Britain’s view of the reforms required to make the EU fit for purpose in the 21^st Century. We have already made progress: the June European Council agreed that EU reform was necessary and that the UK’s concerns should be addressed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2015-01-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Written Statement of 13 January 2015, HCWS183, by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, whether he expects any changes to the programme for the Submarine Dismantling Project as a result of changes announced to NDA Management at Sellafield.

Mr Philip Dunne

There will be no changes to the programme of the Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) as a result of changes announced to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s management at Sellafield.

The assessment of each shortlisted site for the interim storage of Intermediate Level radioactive Waste arising from the SDP will take account of the site operator’s ability to meet and deliver the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) requirement. The site assessment work is at an early stage; no decision has been made as to the final interim storage location.

The MOD will continue to work closely with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the SDP.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2014-07-16.

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross representing the House of Commons Commission, who decided on which days to migrate the IT accounts of hon. Members and hon. Members’ staff to Office 365.

John Thurso

The Improved Access to Services Project Board agreed the high-level schedule for the migration of parliamentary emailboxes to Microsoft 365. The more detailed decision on which days to migrate the emailboxes of hon. Members and hon. Members’ staff was taken by the project team, overseen by the Director of Parliamentary ICT, taking into account factors such as: mailbox access rights (so that users accessing a particular mailbox are migrated at the same time); staff who work for more than one Member; and trying to balance the number of emailboxes accessed by BlackBerry devices across the migration days.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2014-07-16.

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the Answer of 8 July 2014, Official Report, column 176-7W, on computer software, what further feedback the Commission has received from (a) hon. Members, (b) hon. Members’ staff and (c) other users on migration to Office 365 since that Answer was given.

John Thurso

In the period 22 June to 16 July, 3,482 mailboxes assigned to hon. Members and their staff had been migrated. In that period, PICT logged 766 cases from hon. Members and their staff – either by phone or at PICT Local – directly related to issues resulting from the migration of their mailboxes. Parliamentary ICT (PICT) acknowledges that the implementation has not been as simple and straightforward as was hoped, and is aware that it has caused problems for some hon. Members.

Since the answer to the hon. Member on 8 July, three hon. Members have given PICT written feedback on the migration of their mailbox. One was complimenting the PICT team on making it a smooth process. One was questioning the process and the distinction between the upgrade to Office 2013 and the migration of a mailbox to Microsoft 365. One had a problem with the limit on the number of people who can be added to a single email distribution list in Microsoft 365.

Two further hon. Members have given positive oral feedback and asked to join the pilot of the wider suite of tools within Microsoft 365. Oral feedback from the teams of House staff who are also piloting the use of this wider suite of tools continues to be positive.

The Director of PICT would be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, or any other interested Member, to discuss the feedback in more detail.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2014-07-16.

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the Answer of 8 July 2014, Official Report, columns 176-7W, on computer software, what estimate the Commission has made of the (a) average and (b) aggregate amount of time spent by (i) hon. Members, (ii) Members’ staff and (iii) others in migrating to Office 365.

John Thurso

(a) Parliamentary ICT (PICT) estimates that, following the migration of a user’s mailbox to Microsoft 365, it takes the user’s computer (laptop or PC) an average of five minutes to reconfigure Outlook.

It can take a user an average of approximately five minutes to reconfigure a mobile device – other than a BlackBerry – that uses ActiveSync to connect to parliamentary email. Following that reconfiguration, it can take up to a maximum of 60 minutes for the device automatically to re-connect to parliamentary email.

BlackBerry devices need to be physically reconfigured by PICT, and this process can take over an hour – the length of time is linked to the age and model of the device. Furthermore, it takes longer to reconfigure a personal BlackBerry device than a BlackBerry issued by PICT. PICT has issued 92 BlackBerry devices for use by hon. Members and their staff to access parliamentary email.

(b) It is not possible to provide a figure for the aggregate time taken to reconfigure the above devices because more than one device can be reconfigured at the same time.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2014-06-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether export licences to Syria have been granted for the period since 1 July 2012; and if he will describe any such material so exported.

Michael Fallon

Five Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and one Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) have been granted.

The information provided relates to goods or services that have been licensed for export. The licences were granted to international and humanitarian organisations to support and protect staff working in these organisations. The six licences granted authorise export of the following:

SIEL for: components for body armour;

SIEL for: NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protective/defensive equipment;

SIEL for: body armour, components for body armour, military helmets;

SIEL for: body armour, military helmets;

SIEL for: components for all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection;

OIEL for: cryptographic software; equipment employing cryptography.

The licences were granted to international and humanitarian organisations to support and protect staff working in these organisations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thomas Docherty on 2014-05-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 413W, on Falkland Islands, if he will discuss the correct use of the name Falkland Islands with the Secretary of State for the Home Office; and given the misuse of the name by his Department in its internal guidance if he will now issue cross-Department guidance.

Mr Hugo Swire

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials have been in contact with the Home Office to remind them of the appropriate terminology for the Falkland Islands. All Government departments and agencies should refer to ‘the Falkland Islands’ in all instances. There is no evidence that incorrect terminology has been used other than in the isolated cases which the Honourable Member highlights. Therefore no cross-Departmental guidance has been issued.