Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his Department’s policy is on the construction of a national flagship; and whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of using private sponsorship to finance the construction of such a vessel.
Answered by James Cartlidge - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
In the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the decision was made to suspend the National Flagship programme in order to accelerate the procurement of the Multi Role Ocean Surveillance ships.
The Government has no current aspiration to revive the National Flagship. However, the National Shipbuilding Office stands ready to engage with any privately funded venture which has a developed business case and that would bring benefit to UK shipyards and broader supply chain.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will have discussions with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on the (a) circumstances which led the police to cancel a prayer walk for Israel and the Jewish people, organised by Christian Action Against Anti-Antisemitism to take place in Golders Green on 21 October 2023, (b) the basis on which the police determined that tweets by supporters of a pro-Palestinian march scheduled for the same day seven miles away constituted a sufficient level of threat to require cancellation of the Golders Green event and (c) whether the police plan to investigate those tweets further.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office is in regular contact with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) regarding the recent protests following the devastating events in Israel.
The management of protests is an operational matter for the police, as are decisions around investigations. The Home Office cannot intervene on specific operational decisions of this nature, to do so would undermine their independence.
The MPS have confirmed that an officer provided advice and guidance to the organisers of the prayer walk. Following those discussions, a decision was made by the organiser to cancel the vigil.
The MPS do not have the power to prohibit a public procession without the consent of the Secretary of State.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what advice his Department provides to rescue services that pick up migrants in small boats in the English Channel in (a) international and (b) UK territorial waters on where they can land those rescued; and what (i) domestic and (ii) international legal advice he has received on whether they can be landed on the territory of the last safe country from which they embarked.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
Rescues of people making dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings of the Channel in small boats are directed and coordinated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and are subject to the UK's obligations under the SAR and SOLAS Conventions and UNCLOS. The policy on where, when and how those people are rescued therefore lies with MCA and not the Home Office.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will (a) take steps with stakeholders to understand the (i) circumstances which led to Southern Water cutting off water supplies to households in the Waterside area of New Forest East constituency during the evening of Thursday 2 November 2023, (ii) reasons for which the water supply was not resumed until the morning of Sunday 5 November and (iii) reasons for the lack of advance warning to customers, (b) make an assessment of the adequacy of support given by Southern Water to vulnerable customers whose water had been cut off and (c) make it her policy to require water companies to increase their resilience levels to ensure they can deliver water to customers during periods of similarly heavy rainfall in the future.
Answered by Rebecca Pow - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
On 2 November, the effects of Storm Ciaran were seen at Testwood Water Treatment Works in Hampshire. The heavy rainfall and consequent flooding impacted water quality, which meant that it was not possible for the Treatment Works to effectively treat the volume of water needed to maintain supplies. This included to properties in the Waterside area of the New Forest. Southern Water attempted to minimise the impact but as soon as it become apparent that supply would be affected, notifications were provided to customers, through their website and social media.
Once flooding reduced, Southern Water increased supplies slowly to safeguard safety and drinking water quality standards. Customers had water supply restored gradually over the course of Saturday 4 and Sunday 5 November. Arrangements were put in place to support those customers off supply, including the opening of three bottled water stations, and regular deliveries to vulnerable customers.
Throughout the water supply outage, my officials engaged closely with Southern Water to ensure steps were taken to resolve the incident as soon as possible. I was regularly briefed on the emerging situation and ensured that Southern Water was supporting customers in the impacted area, particularly those who are vulnerable.
And on 8 November, I met with Lawrence Gosden, CEO Southern Water, to consider what lessons could be learned from this water supply incident and the actions Southern Water are taking avoid future interruptions at Testwood Water Treatment Works. The company is also providing a detailed report to the Drinking Water Inspectorate, who will carry out a full assessment on the event.
Ensuring a plentiful supply of water is a government priority with our Plan for Water, published in April 2023, setting out how we will enhance water supply infrastructure and improve resilience to drought as well as managing water demand. Earlier this year, regional water resources groups and water companies, including Southern Water, consulted on their draft Water Resource Management Plans. Within their plans, water companies must consider all options, including demand management and water resources infrastructure for at least the next 25 years.
Water companies are also using the £469 million made available by Ofwat in the current Price Review period (2020-2025) to investigate strategic water resources options, that are required to improve the resilience of England’s water supplies. Ofwat also recently announced that water companies are bringing forward £2.2 billion for new water infrastructure delivery, over the next two years, with £350 million worth of investment in water resilience schemes.
Where a company does not meet their performance expectations, Ofwat, the independent water regulator, will take decisive regulatory action. For example, due to underperformance in 2022-23 across several areas, including on supply interruptions and customer satisfaction, draft decisions by Ofwat will mean Southern will return over £42 million to its customers in the 2024-25 financial year.
Government and regulators will continue to closely monitor Southern Water’s Performance and will not hesitate to hold them to account if they fall short.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 18 July 2023 to Question 193280 on Earl Mountbatten of Burma: Diaries, how much his Department spent on (a) barristers and (b) other lawyers as part of the (i) litigation related to the First-tier Tribunal and (ii) freedom of information requests made by Dr Andrew Lownie on the Mountbatten diaries and letters.
Answered by Alex Burghart - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The Cabinet Office has worked with the University of Southampton to support the release of the Mountbatten archive, whilst ensuring sensitive and official information is handled appropriately and in line with the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act. Dr Lownie lost his appeal against the Cabinet Office, but continued to seek costs in a separate application. This application was rejected by the First Tier Tribunal and permission to appeal at the Upper Tribunal was also rejected.
The final legal costs relating to the First Tier Tribunal hearings and associated litigation regarding this archive are £180,454. This relates to 5 appeals EA/2020/0021, EA/2020/0026, EA/2020/0058, EA/2020/0059 and EA/2021/0125 as well as a further 5 related appeals and application to seek costs including UA-2022-001422, 001425, 001427, 001428 and 001429-GIA. These costs include those incurred by the Cabinet Office for external legal counsel and work by the Government Legal Department.
The cost of officials’ time, including Cabinet Office legal advisers’, is not recorded against each Freedom of Information request.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much his Department spent on (a) barristers and (b) other lawyers as part of the (i) litigation related to the First-tier Tribunal and (ii) freedom of information requests made by Dr Andrew Lownie on the Mountbatten diaries and letters; and if he will make an estimate of the cost of civil service time spent in handling all aspects of this matter.
Answered by Alex Burghart - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
To provide this information would exceed the threshold and incur a disproportionate cost to the Cabinet Office. Civil servants do not record the proportion of time that they spend on individual matters, and cover a range of responsibilities, including Freedom of Information and litigation.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what recent assessment he has made of the potential utility of an augmentation task force of experienced UK former (a) officials and (b) military personnel to work on preliminary plans for the reconstruction of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Leo Docherty - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for the Armed Forces)
The Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC) in London demonstrated the UK's commitment to Ukraine's reconstruction. It is for Ukraine to lead reconstruction planning in accordance with the National Recovery Plan it unveiled in 2022. Through the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform for Ukraine, we, alongside partners, are working with Ukraine to determine its immediate recovery priorities. We are considering initiatives to support Ukraine's early recovery and reform programme. At the URC, we announced £240 million of bilateral assistance this year for Ukraine's humanitarian, early recovery and reform needs. FCDO's Civilian Stabilisation Group already provides rapidly deployable specialist conflict expertise to target priority conflicts.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much of the £87,500 lump-sum payment will war widows who have remarried or started cohabiting receive after taxation; and if he will make it his policy to either make the payments tax-exempt or increase the level of the payments so that each recipient receives £87,500 after tax.
Answered by Andrew Murrison - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
There is nothing we can do to bring a loved one back, and no amount of money will ever change that. This payment is not intended to put a value on a widow’s loss. But this is a meaningful amount in recognition that remarriage or cohabiting with a new partner does not erase the bereavement.
The rules for this recognition payment include that it is taxable. This was taken into consideration when the figure was set at £87,500. The amount received after taxation will depend on individual circumstances.
Ministry of Defence and Treasury officials are working on the details and rollout.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make representations to the United Nations Human Rights Council against the appointment of Iran’s ambassador to the UN as chairman of its Social Forum 2023; and for what reason no alternative candidate was nominated by the UK.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The Iranian Government is responsible for persistent, widespread and serious human rights violations and can have no international credibility in this sphere. This is why we worked with partners in December to ensure Iran was expelled from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The Social Forum is a subsidiary body of the UN Human Rights Council which the UK does not traditionally attend. The chair rotates between members' ambassadors according to region and this year is the turn of the Asia-Pacific region. The UK will continue to work closely with our partners to hold Iran to account in international fora; to that end we regularly meet with UN representatives, both in the UK and overseas through UK Missions in Geneva, New York and around the world.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the average number of tuition hours not accessed by university students as a result of strike action by university staff in the last year; whether her Department issues guidance to (a) universities and (b) students on reimbursement of (i) fees and (ii) other costs for tuition hours not accessed by students as a result of (A) strikes and (B) other factors affecting the delivery of academic services by the university; what data her Department holds on the reimbursement of such costs to students by universities in such cases; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by Robert Halfon
Compensating students for disruption is the responsibility of higher education (HE) providers, which are independent from government.
The Office for Students (OfS) has made clear that they expect universities to abide by the conditions of registration, maintain the delivery of HE and minimise disruption to students in the event of any industrial action. The OfS has also highlighted providers’ obligations under consumer protection law in relation to the impact of industrial action.
The OfS have wide-ranging powers to ensure that students’ interests are protected, and they expect providers to do all they can to avoid disruption to students.
The OfS’s powers include the ability to impose one or more specific ongoing conditions of registration, impose a monetary penalty, refuse to renew a provider’s access and participation plan, suspend aspects of a provider’s registration, vary or revoke a provider's authorisation for degree awarding powers, revoke a provider’s authorisation to use ‘university’ in its title, or deregister a provider.
The OfS has advised HE providers that, in the event of disruption caused by industrial action, students may be entitled to repeated learning opportunities or tuition fee refunds. These remedies are determined by the contents of the provider-student contract, as well as relevant consumer protection law.