Author: admin

  • Kate Hoey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions took place at his most recent meeting with the European Health Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis; whether he discussed (a) the likely timelines for the future setting of maximum permitted levels for nutrients under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive and (b) the potential extension of the scope of that Directive to include supplements containing ingredients of plant, fish and animal origin at that meeting; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    No discussions have yet taken place with Commissioner Andriukaitis. The new European Commission has not announced any renewed plans to implement Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive and the Government has not recently made an assessment of potential effects of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals, either on consumer choice, or on British businesses. Our advice to United Kingdom manufacturers on safe daily dose levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements is based on the report of the UK’s Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. The industry has supported the use of these levels and the report is also used by some other member states as advice for safe upper levels.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to increase the sentences available in cases of the cyber-bullying of students.

    Mike Penning

    The sending of abusive messages or material online can cause misery for victims and is an issue the Government takes extremely seriously.

    That is why we are changing the law through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act to increase the maximum sentence to two years in prison for the offence of sending abusive or offensive material online with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

    We are also changing the law to enable prosecutions to take place three years after the alleged offence, rather than six months.

    There are a number of other serious penalties available in cases of cyber bullying of students.

    Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the offences of harassment causing alarm or distress or putting people in fear of violence carry a maximum of six months and five years imprisonment respectively.

    There is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending material which is indecent, grossly offensive, obscene or menacing. It carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

    In addition, guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council stipulate that it is an aggravating factor if an offence is committed against a vulnerable victim or involves abuse of a position of power. Sentencing guidelines can be found on the Sentencing Council’s website, and courts are obliged to follow the guidelines unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

  • Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of how many and what proportion of Disclosure and Barring Service applications were returned to applicants within (a) 20, (b) 40, (c) 60, (d) 80 and (e) 100 days and (f) more than 100 days in each of the last 12 months.

    Karen Bradley

    The number and proportion of disclosure applications completed within 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days, and the number and proportion completed in more than 100 days, for each month from February 2014 to January 2015 is provided in the table below.

  • Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of application backlogs at the Disclosure and Barring Service.

    Karen Bradley

    The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) receives around 4 million disclosure
    applications a year and provides the Home Office with monthly updates on its
    performance. Latest data for the 2014-15 operational year, covering the period
    from April 2014 to January 2015, shows that 95.4% of disclosure certificates
    were issued within 40 working days – well above the DBS service standard to
    issue 88% of all disclosures within this time.

    A key aspect of DBS administration is to ensure that disclosure checks are both
    accurate and completed within service standard timescales. In the small
    proportion of cases where checks have not been completed within these
    timescales, the DBS is expected to take the necessary steps to progress the
    case including, as appropriate, working with the police and other parties
    involved in the checking process.

  • Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ian Austin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the dates are of the oldest applications currently being processed by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

    Karen Bradley

    The Disclosure and Barring Service is currently processing 36 applications that were received more than 12 months ago. No case is older than 19 months.

    There are a number of reasons why some cases may take longer than others to process.

  • Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Jones on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what funding she plans to allocate to police forces to train officers in recognising signs of coercive control and collecting the necessary evidence when that offence is introduced.

    Lynne Featherstone

    We are committed to ensuring the police and other frontline agencies have the
    tools they need to respond effectively to domestic abuse. That is why on 18
    December, the Home Secretary announced her intention to create a specific
    offence of domestic abuse.

    The offence will not come into force until frontline agencies are properly
    trained to operate it effectively. An implementation plan, which will consider
    funding issues, is currently being developed with the police and College of
    Policing. The College is working with CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against
    Domestic Abuse) to pilot an intensive programme of training including domestic
    abuse and coercive control. An evaluation will be carried out following the
    pilot to ensure that the training will make a significant contribution to long
    term improvements to policing of domestic abuse and will be an important factor
    in driving a culture change in the police so that domestic abuse is treated as
    the serious crime that it is.

    The new offence of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’, as well as the wider
    issue of training for police officers on domestic abuse, has been discussed
    at the National Oversight Group on domestic abuse, established and chaired by
    the Home Secretary. The purpose of the group is to implement and monitor activity
    against the recommendations coming out of HMIC’s review of domestic abuse and includes
    both Chief Constable and Third Sector representation.

  • Julian Huppert – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Julian Huppert – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Huppert on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department has taken to explore the possibility of resettling Syrians to the UK via private sponsorship from individual British citizens who have expressed interest in offering accommodation to Syrians in need; and what discussions she has had with the Local Government Association on ways in which local authorities can indicate their interest in resettling Syrians in their communities.

    James Brokenshire

    We have not considered a private sponsorship model for the resettlement of Syrians through the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme. We do not believe this is appropriate given the vulnerabilities of those arriving in the UK as we need to ensure that the correct level of support and accommodation is in place before they arrive in the UK.

    After launching the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) scheme last January, the Home Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Local Government Association on 11 February 2014 encouraging local authority participation and the contents of this letter have been cascaded across local authorities. As the scheme has progressed, we have continued to engage closely with local authorities who have expressed an interest in participation.

    Following the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) pledging conference in Geneva on 9 December 2014, a number of additional local authorities have also expressed an interest, and we are in discussions with them. We are grateful to the local authorities who are supporting the scheme, and we remain confident that we can continue to meet the needs of arrivals in the UK under the scheme as planned. We expect the scheme to help several hundred Syrians over three years, and we welcome further offers of support from local authorities as the scheme progresses.

  • Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Jones on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she has had with (a) chief constables and (b) organisations dealing with violence against women on the training requirements for police officers when coercive control becomes a criminal offence; and if she will make a statement.

    Lynne Featherstone

    We are committed to ensuring the police and other frontline agencies have the
    tools they need to respond effectively to domestic abuse. That is why on 18
    December, the Home Secretary announced her intention to create a specific
    offence of domestic abuse.

    The offence will not come into force until frontline agencies are properly
    trained to operate it effectively. An implementation plan, which will consider
    funding issues, is currently being developed with the police and College of
    Policing. The College is working with CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against
    Domestic Abuse) to pilot an intensive programme of training including domestic
    abuse and coercive control. An evaluation will be carried out following the
    pilot to ensure that the training will make a significant contribution to long
    term improvements to policing of domestic abuse and will be an important factor
    in driving a culture change in the police so that domestic abuse is treated as
    the serious crime that it is.

    The new offence of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’, as well as the wider
    issue of training for police officers on domestic abuse, has been discussed
    at the National Oversight Group on domestic abuse, established and chaired by
    the Home Secretary. The purpose of the group is to implement and monitor activity
    against the recommendations coming out of HMIC’s review of domestic abuse and includes
    both Chief Constable and Third Sector representation.

  • Chris Williamson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Chris Williamson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Williamson on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to publish the Government response to the Consultation on the review of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, published in May 2014; and if it remains her intention for any amendments to the legislation arising from the consultation to be made before the dissolution of Parliament.

    Lynne Featherstone

    The consultation on revising Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has now concluded. Draft proposals are with other Government departments for consideration and I intend to make an announcement in due course.

  • Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 5 February 2015 to Question 222873, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that UK users who acquire non-human primates ensure breeders and suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place; how such controls and processes are monitored; and how many UK users have been found not to have sufficient controls and processes in place.

    Lynne Featherstone

    We have taken a number of steps to gain assurances about the quality of non-human primates being imported for research within the legal constraints available to us. We have emphasised to those UK users who acquire these primates that they are responsible for ensuring that the breeders and suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place. In order to be assured that these animals are of appropriate quality for the work authorised on their project licences, they need to be confident of high standards of care and welfare.

    We are aware that, in recent years, these UK users have routinely visited and inspected their overseas primate breeders, and that they do indeed demand these high standards. We are encouraging this to continue.

    Home Office Inspectors assigned to establishments holding and using imported primates play a key role in monitoring the situation. Through inspection visits and other contact with animal care staff, inspectors maintain awareness of the importations of primates, both consignments already acquired and those due. This enables appropriately timed inspections to be carried out to monitor the quality of animals being acquired.

    We also expect the local inspector to be notified promptly in the event of any significant health or welfare problems which may occur following arrival of an importation of primates. Should a particular source be shown to be delivering primates of unacceptable quality from the perspective of their health and welfare, we will deal with this through the relevant licence authorisation.

    No UK users have been found to have insufficient controls and processes in place.