Author: admin

  • Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), which immigration offences led, following conviction, to the forfeiture of assets totalling £966,024 in 2014–15; and how much was forfeited in total for each offence.

    Lord Bates

    There were 16 confiscation orders amounting to £966,024, these are broken down to the following offences.

    Offence

    Amount

    Forgery and Counterfeiting

    £162,997.55

    Facilitation investigation

    £10,665.95

    Sham Marriage – assisting unlawful immigration

    £85,519.29

    Fraud and Money Laundering

    £2.00

    Conspiracy to Facilitate a Breach of Immigration Law

    £25,466.62

    Conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration

    £330,352.72

    Fraud by false representation

    £1,020.32

    Assisting Unlawful Immigration into the UK

    £350,000.00

    In the case of Money Laundering, the small total is because of nominal confiscation orders. A nominal confiscation order for a small amount (such as £1), may be imposed where the court finds that the defendant has benefitted from his criminal conduct, but has no realisable assets. If circumstances change then the order can be revisited.

  • Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), how they arrived at their assessment that in-country seizure could double with the use of the extended powers enabled by the new illegal working offence.

    Lord Bates

    The Government arrived at this assessment based on the impact of the court’s judgement in the case of Nuro on the ability of Home Office Immigration Enforcement to use Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) cash seizure powers which were conferred on immigration officers by section 24 of the UK Border Act 2007. The courts have held (Nuro v Home Office [2014]) that as it is not a criminal offence for an illegal immigrant who is not subject to immigration conditions to be self employed in the UK, there is insufficient causation between the offence of illegal entry to the UK and obtaining the earnings to apply POCA powers. The creation of the offence of illegal working will address this judgment and provide a broader basis for cash seizure.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid for the inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 to (1) the government legal team and (2) the chairman.

    Lord Faulks

    The report of Lord Hutton’s Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly was published on 28 January 2004. The inquiry website indicates that staff costs for the inquiry secretariat were £145,975 and that the cost of external advice, including lawyers’ fees, was £990,303. No fees are shown as having been paid to Lord Hutton. No further breakdown of costs is available.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will list all the occasions they discussed parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, with the government of Ireland; who attended; on what date; what was discussed; and what action, if any, was taken.

    Lord Dunlop

    As has been explained previously to the Noble Lord, the UK and Irish Governments meet regularly at ministerial and official level to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern. These include matters relating to the implementation of the Belfast Agreement.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, to have been a success, and if so, on what basis.

    Lord Dunlop

    I have nothing further to add to my earlier responses on parity of esteem.

  • Pat Glass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Pat Glass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pat Glass on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on cases in which workers do not receive compensation awarded by an employment tribunal because the companies which were paying them less than the national minimum wage have moved into voluntary liquidation.

    Nick Boles

    The Government is committed to the effective enforcement of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and will take tough action where employers are found to have underpaid their staff. BIS Ministers regularly discuss issues of enforcement with colleagues in other relevant Departments to ensure the system is effective.

    Ensuring employees get the money they are owed is a priority. Where employees are owed monies but their employer has gone in to liquidation, they are entitled to claim for the difference between their rate of pay and the NMW, through the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service (RPS). The RPS will consider these claims and make payments, within certain statutory limits, to employees.

    The Government has also taken action to strengthen the enforcement powers available for NMW breaches, including ensuring that every criminal breach of the NMW Act is considered for Director Disqualification.

  • Michael Fabricant – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Michael Fabricant – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michael Fabricant on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence ways by which vexatious claims against soldiers who have served on operations overseas can be minimised; and if he will make a statement.

    Dominic Raab

    As the Prime Minister announced last Friday we cannot have our armed forces being hounded by ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing spurious claims. I will be chairing a working group with the Minister for Armed forces that will look at every aspect of this issue, including conditional fee arrangements, legal aid rules and disciplinary sanctions against lawyers who abuse the system, to prevent malicious litigation being brought against our service personnel.

  • Angela Crawley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Angela Crawley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Crawley on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans the Government has to seek legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament for the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.

    Dominic Raab

    This Government was elected with a clear mandate to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. We will bring forward proposals for consultation in due course, and will fully engage with the Devolved Administrations.

    It would be premature to comment on the application of the Sewell Convention until the package of legislation is settled.

  • Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the Government plans to publish the findings of its review of employment tribunal fees.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Following public consultation, the government introduced fees in Employment Tribunals as a way of reducing the burden on the taxpayer and to encourage parties to seek alternative ways of resolving their disputes.

    On 11 June we announced the start of the post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals.

    The review will report in due course.

  • Martyn Day – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Martyn Day – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Martyn Day on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans the Government has to seek legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament for the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.

    Dominic Raab

    This Government was elected with a clear mandate to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. We will bring forward proposals for consultation in due course, and will fully engage with the Devolved Administrations.

    It would be premature to comment on the application of the Sewell Convention until the package of legislation is settled.