First elected: 7th May 2015
Left House: 3rd May 2017 (Defeated)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.
If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.
If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).
These initiatives were driven by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on 6 July 2015 to Question 4832:
The Prime Minister outlined his 2020 vision last Spring, which set out challenging Government targets across Whitehall to increase BAME opportunities, including take-up of apprenticeships, employment, and recruitment in the police and armed forces.
On 26 October many of the country’s top employers, including the Civil Service, committed to ‘name blind’ recruitment processes.
The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will not threaten the right of the UK or Devolved Administrations to regulate or determine public policy. The Commission has published a proposal for reforms to investment protections in this agreement, which includes a clause setting out governments’ right to regulate.
The UK will work with the Commission on this proposal to ensure that UK investors are treated fairly overseas by foreign governments while allowing governments to regulate lawfully and in the public interest.
An independent assessment of the potential economic impact of proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the UK was carried out by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). The CEPR analysis includes an assessment of the impact on twenty broad sectors of the economy, with estimated impacts on output, trade and shifts in employment. This can be found on the GOV.UK website.
An independent assessment of the potential economic impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on the UK as a whole was carried out for the Government by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). This assessment demonstrated that TTIP offers an enormous economic benefit: in growth, exports and high quality jobs, worth up to £10 billion a year.
We are currently considering undertaking further research into effects of TTIP in each of the UK regions.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will benefit the UK economy by up to £10 billion a year, making investment in education and health more affordable. It will not, however, affect how public services are provided. Decisions on how to deliver public services for UK citizens are and will be made by UK governments, not our trade partners.
The agreement should lead to new market access for Scottish companies to compete for US Government contracts. The UK will continue to be able to set standards for public procurement.
Onshore wind has made a valuable contribution to the UK energy mix in recent years but has now reached the point where there is enough capacity in the pipeline for the UK to meet its 2020 renewable commitments. The grace period arrangements that we have proposed are intended to protect investor confidence in the wider renewable sector and balance the interests of onshore wind developers with consumers, who pay the cost of renewable electricity generation through their energy bill.
DECC will continue to engage with developers, investors and stakeholders as we implement the manifesto commitment. We will consider carefully the level of investment that developers are likely to bring forward under the proposals announced by my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 June.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
While the UK is still a member of the EU, all rights and obligations will apply. We continue to support the EU’s trade agenda and the UK will participate constructively in EU decision making on trade issues including proceeding with implementation of the agreed EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
While the UK is still a member of the EU, all rights and obligations will apply. We continue to support the EU’s trade agenda and the UK will participate constructively in EU decision making on trade issues. We are taking stock of our position with regard to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations.
While the UK is still a member of the EU, all rights and obligations will apply. We continue to support the EU’s trade agenda and the UK will participate constructively in EU decision making on trade issues.
The Government considers that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a “mixed agreement” consisting of both EU and Member State competence. Provided the European Council agrees, this means that CETA can only take full effect once the UK has decided to ratify it. As part of that ratification process, the complete draft text of the agreement would be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. In addition, the Government will ensure the proposals for a Council decision on signature, and subsequently conclusion, will be subject to scrutiny in both houses of the UK Parliament.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills commissioned research into the costs and benefits for the UK of the inclusion of investment protection provisions in the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This was published on 22 November 2013 and copies placed in the House libraries.
The investment protection provisions in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and any such provisions included in TTIP will not prevent Governments from regulating responsibly in the public interest, nor from delivering public services, including such services and regulations that are devolved to the Scottish Government. A claim can only be made under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions where an investor believes it has suffered from discriminatory or unfair treatment. ISDS tribunals can typically only award compensation and cannot force governments to change laws or public service delivery models. The UK currently has over 90 investment protection agreements with other countries. There has been no successful action against the UK in respect of any of these agreements.
The Government would typically be responsible for legal costs incurred and compensatory payments awarded by an ISDS tribunal resulting from acts by UK local authorities. There is no specific mechanism in place for the UK Government to pass any such costs or payments to Scottish local authorities. The UK has a good record of creating the right environment for investors and treating them fairly – we have over 90 such agreements in place with other countries and there has never been a successful ISDS claim brought against the UK.
The Government continues to work with the education sector, community organisations and operational partners to safeguard our young people from extremism and radicalisation.
The Department for Education has issued practical guidance for schools and childcare providers to help them understand how to implement the Prevent duty, which requires them to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. In September 2016, the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance was updated to cover online safety, including the requirement for schools and colleges to ensure appropriate monitoring systems are in place.
We are also ensuring that schools are equipped to build children’s resilience against extremist ideology and prepare them for life in a modern, diverse Britain. Since 2011, more than 550,000 people, including teachers, have been trained to recognise the signs of radicalisation and to know what steps to take. New advice and resources continue to be uploaded to our Educate Against Hate website, which aims to help parents, teachers and school leaders protect young people from extremism and radicalisation.
The Department has established the counter-extremism helpline; anyone who has concerns relating to extremism affecting young people or the education sector can contact the helpline.
We have also worked with Ofsted to strengthen their inspection frameworks so that inspectors are required to assess how well schools protect pupils from the risks of extremism and radicalisation, and promote fundamental British values (democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs).
Ministers regularly meet with stakeholders, including representatives of the Russell Group, to discuss issues of interest to the sector.
Details of Ministers' meetings will be published on a quarterly basis in arrears as is standard practice. The next data release will relate to the period July to September 2016.
Details of Ministerial meetings will be published in the Department’s Quarterly Transparency Returns, which will be made publicly available on GOV.UK.
DFID has provided £85.5 million to the Yemen Humanitarian Pooled Fund (YHPF) over the last five years from the total DFID bilateral funding listed in the table below. In 2016, the YHPF provided £94.5 million of support to 7.8 million people, including food security, water and sanitation and health interventions. Approximately £13 million of this funding was delivered by local and national NGOs.
In addition, in 2017/18 we will provide £24 million to our Multi-Sector Humanitarian Response programme, approximately £1.5m of which will directly support local and national NGOs.
Financial Year | DFID bilateral programme outturn (in £s) |
2015/16 | 89.6 million |
2014/15 | 65.9 million |
2013/14 | 81.4 million |
2012/13 | 59.1 million |
DFID has provided over £70 million to the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SSHF) over the last 3 years from the total DFID bilateral funding listed in the table below. In 2016, the SSHF provided over £70 million to reach over 1.2m people with WASH, nutrition, health, and other lifesaving activities. Approximately £8 million of this funding was delivered through local and national NGOs.
In addition to our bilateral funding, targeted support is being provided through DFID’s centrally managed Disaster Emergency Preparedness Programme to deliver 3 projects supporting national and local NGOs in South Sudan to engage more effectively in humanitarian preparedness and response.
Financial Year | DFID bilateral programme outturn (in £s) |
2015/16 | 188.184m |
2014/15 | 158.013m |
2013/14 | 139.647m |
2012/13 | 108.516m |
Figures for financial year 2016/17 will be published in the DFID Annual Report and accounts due for publication in Summer 2017.
The UK is not providing direct technical assistance to the Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) in Aden. However, we are working closely with other donors to look at ways to support the CBY to continue to function, pay salaries across the country, and pay for essential food and fuel imports.
The UK is at the forefront of the humanitarian response to the Syria crisis. We have committed £2.3 billion, of which £436 million supports UN agencies delivering aid inside Syria. We are using all our diplomatic tools to press the Syrian regime and its backers to allow the UN immediate and unhindered access to all those in need across Syria. As part of this, the UK co-sponsored and lobbied hard to secure UN Security Council Resolutions 2165, 2191, 2258 and 2332 which enable the UN and its partners to deliver aid across borders into Syria without the consent of the Syrian regime. Between July 2014 and December 2016, 467 aid convoys had reached people in dire need through these routes.
We continue to urge all parties to the conflict to take all reasonable steps to facilitate rapid and safe humanitarian access. DFID is supporting the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Humanitarian Air Service to improve access for vital commercial imports of food and for humanitarian aid.
UK humanitarian aid to Yemen is currently focused on urgent life-saving needs, in particular food, nutrition, health, water and sanitation. However, DFID has also supported education in Yemen through the Social Fund for Development (SFD). Since 2010, more than 240,000 children have attended schools supported by SFD. DFID support to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to rehabilitate two schools is also helping 3,500 refugee and Yemeni children to resume education.
DFID has provided £1 million to the UN Humanitarian Air Service (UNHAS) to establish a regular flight between Djibouti and Sana’a for the exclusive use of the humanitarian community. UNHAS has provided 88 flights since the crisis began, carrying 2,129 passengers and 8.6 metric tons of essential medical supplies. 14 UN agencies and 28 NGOs are now using the service. We are also working with UNHAS to establish other regular flight services to Yemen.
There are no arrangements in place at present. I will write to the Minister for Europe and International Development in the Scottish Government in due course.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.