The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Office of the Attorney General has any records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Attorney General has no formal role in the issue of Royal Pardons and therefore there are no records of Royal Pardons held by the Attorney General’s Office.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the reported loss of records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997 applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Faulks
The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy may currently take one of three forms:
i) The grant of a Free Pardon;
ii) The grant of a conditional Pardon;
iii) Remission of all or part of a penalty
By Constitutional convention, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (in succession to the Home Secretary) is responsible, in England and Wales (and the Channel Islands), for recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to grant a Royal Pardon. In Northern Ireland the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for reserved matters and the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland for devolved matters. In Scotland it is devolved to the First Minister. The Secretary of State for Defence also has the responsibility in relation to members of the armed forces.
Each department or administration is responsible for maintaining their records. I am not aware of any problems with retrieving such records for this period relating to royal pardons granted on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Justice.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have sought assistance from the Royal Household in recovering records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997.
Baroness Randerson
The review of Departmental record keeping ordered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is ongoing.
Northern Ireland Office officials continue to seek information on use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) for the years 1987 to 1997. This includes contact with the Royal Household to ascertain whether they hold any relevant information.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements are in place for a person who was granted a royal pardon between 1987 and 1997 to resist a subsequent prosecution for the crime for which that person has been pardoned in the event of new evidence emerging and the lack of knowledge by the prosecuting authorities of the existence of such a pardon given the absence of records of such pardons having been granted.
Baroness Randerson
Following a search of the records held by the Northern Ireland Office, no evidence has been found to indicate that between 1987 and 1997, the RPM was used to do anything other than to remit (i.e. shorten) the sentences of individuals who had already been convicted of offences. It is therefore the release from custody that demonstrates the exercise of the RPM.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Vinson on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the cost to public funds, in each of the last five years, of compensation payments to illegal immigrants who had been unlawfully detained beyond the statutory period; and what was the legal aid cost of the lawyers undertaking those compensation claims.
Lord Faulks
1 April 2008 we have reported on compensation cases and disclosed information on individual cases where the costs exceeded £250,000. We do not report the individual details on cases below this threshold, or prior to this date.
Information relating to compensation, ex-gratia and adverse legal costs payments is available and can be found within the Losses and Special Payments disclosure in the UKBA Annual Report and Accounts. These are available on the Home Office Website via the attached link.
www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=uk-border-agency
Legal Aid Agency data does not distinguish between false imprisonment claims made by illegal immigrants and those made by other individuals.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe on 2014-06-11.
To ask the Leader of the House what steps he will take to facilitate the passage of Private Members’ Bills through the House of Lords.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Practice in recent years is well-established: Private Members’ Bills introduced in the House of Lords are offered Second Reading slots in the order in which they receive their First Reading. Second Readings for Private Members’ Bills introduced this session have been scheduled on Friday 27 June and Friday 18 July; further Second Readings will be arranged in due course. A ballot to determine the order in which Private Members’ Bills receive their First Reading will be introduced from the start of the new Parliament (3rd Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2013-14).
For Bills that receive a Second Reading, formal consideration of their remaining stages will be arranged where no amendments are tabled and where the Member in charge so requests. Where Bills receive a Second Reading but require further substantive consideration of amendments, they will be competing for time with Private Members’ Bills that are received from the House of Commons and Private Members’ Bills introduced in this House that are still awaiting a Second Reading.
My noble friend the Government Chief Whip will endeavour to facilitate the progress of bills in each of those categories.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pannick on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will be publishing a response to proposals from the European Court of Justice for new rules of procedure that would permit the General Court to take into account, in actions for annulment, confidential information that has not been shown to some of the parties to the proceedings.
Baroness Warsi
The Government issued an Explanatory Memorandum on the 25 May April in which it highlighted these proposals as a matter of particular interest. This is a complex and sensitive issue which Governments across the EU are very carefully considering. We are aware of parliamentary interest in this issue and will continue to update on developments. Under the Treaty on European Union national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Student Loans Company does not provide up-to-date online information about the state of an account, detailing all repayments made into the account via the PAYE system since the last statement was issued.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
HMRC collates employer information on student loan deductions at the end of each tax year and provides this information in P14 “end of year summaries” to the SLC. The SLC calculate interest and statements are issued to borrowers, advising them of their deductions, interest and outstanding balance at the end of the tax year. This process is repeated annually until all student loan repayments are collected.
The repayment information held by the SLC will, as a result of this system, be accurate to the April of the previous tax year. The SLC is not in a position to provide an accurate settlement of a borrower’s balance more recently than the previous April. However, the borrower can track and monitor their own settlement balance online if they retain a note of all their repayment deductions made over the tax year.
HMRC, BIS and SLC are currently discussing arrangements to share student loan repayment information more quickly, but there is no mechanism to do so in the current tax system and necessary changes will take some time to implement.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Student Loans Company and HM Revenue and Customs joint accounting system is able to continue deducting repayments on loans via the PAYE system even when repayment has been completed; and why in such circumstances it is necessary for the individual customer to alert them to the situation and to reclaim overpayment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is possible for borrowers with Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) loans nearing the end of their repayment term to over-repay their loans because there is a time lag between the deductions from borrowers pay (by employers), HMRC’s annual process for student loan repayment accounting and the student loans Company (SLC) subsequently receiving payment information from HMRC. As a consequence it is possible for people to over repay before the SLC becomes aware that their repayments should stop.
Because of this, SLC notifies borrowers in the final 23 months of repayment that they may opt out of the PAYE system and complete their loan repayments by Direct Debit (DD). This would ensure they do not over repay their loan. If borrowers choose not take up DD repayment it is likely that they will over repay. Borrowers are advised to monitor their own repayments. If they can demonstrate to SLC that they have paid enough by providing evidence, such as payslips, SLC can then ask HMRC to issue a "stop" notice to employers and refund any over repayments at the earliest opportunity.
The SLC provides guidance and tools to help borrowers calculate their loan balance and when they are likely to repay their loan in full. The SLC refunds all over repayments to borrowers’ bank accounts.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Black of Brentwood on 2014-06-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 May (WA 358), whether they are considering introducing legislation to prevent the practice of reparative or conversion therapy on homosexual men and women.
Earl Howe
This Government does not believe that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is an illness to be treated or cured. We have no current plans to ban or restrict conversion therapy via legislation as we do not feel this would be an effective preventive measure.
We do, however, fully recognise the importance of this issue. Therefore, the Minister of State for Care and Support, Norman Lamb, convened a roundtable with professional bodies and charities in February of this year to discuss collaborative measures to help prevent the use of such therapies. The Department continues to work with these organisations.