Category: Speeches

  • Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the (a) capacity and (b) population of each (a) secure training centre, (b) young offender institution and (c) secure children’s home on 1 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013 and (v) 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    Overall crime and proven offending by young people has fallen in recent years. Fewer young people have entered the criminal justice system, and as a result fewer young people have ended up in custody. This has allowed excess capacity in the youth secure estate to be decommissioned.

    The Table below shows the (a) capacity and (b) population of each Secure Children’s Home, Secure Training Centre and under-18 Young Offender Institution at the end of February in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and at the end of January in 2014 (this is the latest available published data for 2014). This relates to either the last Friday of the month in question, or the first Friday of the following month, depending on which is closest to final day of the month. Data for the end of February therefore offers the closest available published data to 1 March.

    The “capacity” figure relates to the number of beds available, allowing for any “out of commission” beds due to for example, damage to rooms or contractual changes.

    This information comes from the Youth Justice Board’s Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database and eAsset database. The January 2014 database is provisional. The final 2013/14 figures will be finalised in 2013/14 Youth Justice Statistics to be published in January 2015.

    These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and can be subject to change over time.

  • Graham Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Graham Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Jones on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who (a) were given a non-custodial sentence and (b) were given their first custodial sentence in each year from 2004 had previously had (i) no criminal convictions, (ii) one criminal conviction, (iii) two criminal convictions, (iv) three criminal convictions, (v) four criminal convictions, (vi) five to 10 criminal convictions, (vii) 11 to 20 criminal convictions, (viii) 21 to 30 criminal convictions, (ix) 31 to 40 criminal convictions, (x) 41 to 50 criminal convictions, (xi) 51 to 75, (xii) 76 to 100 criminal convictions and (xiii) more than 100 criminal convictions.

    Jeremy Wright

    Since 2010, crime has continued to fall and fewer individuals are entering the criminal justice system for the first time. But we have a persistent hardcore of offenders being recycled round and round the criminal justice system, as these figures bear out.

    This Government is committed to tackling re-offending rates. We have reformed sentences, so that they combine both punishment and requirements that are effective at preventing further offending. We have legislated so that all community orders must now have a punitive element, and, from 2015, every offender leaving prison spends at least 12 months under supervision, where currently around 50,000 are released each year with no statutory support. We are transforming rehabilitation, by bringing together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors, and only rewarding them when they actually do reduce reoffending.

    Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking account of the circumstances of the case and the maximum penalty for the offence. A court may only impose a community order or a custodial sentence where the offence is imprisonable. The overwhelming majority of repeat offenders have previously received a number of custodial sentences but the large majority of previous convictions identified in the table below resulted in a fine as they were for summary non-motoring offences.

    The number of offenders who were given a non-custodial sentence in each year since 2004, broken down by their number of previous convictions, is given in Table 1. It is important to note that these figures are based only on those offences recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) by an English or Welsh police force, including the British Transport Police, and include a number of offences for which the maximum sentence available to the court is a fine. It should also be noted that these figures are based on counting the number of separate occasions on which offenders were sentenced in each year and some offenders will therefore be represented several times in the figures.

    Table 2 provides a similar breakdown for those offenders who received their first custodial sentence in each year. Again, the figures are drawn from the PNC and will include a number of offences for which the maximum sentence available to the court is a fine. A large proportion of each offender’s criminal history is therefore likely to include some offences for which it is not possible to receive a custodial sentence. Of those offenders who had between 76 and 100 previous convictions between the 12 months ending September 2004 and the 12 months ending September 2013, 84% of the disposals for their previous convictions were fines. This increases to 96% when you look at the offenders who had over 100 previous convictions. It should also be noted that these figures are based on counting the number of separate occasions on which offenders were sentenced in each year and some offenders could therefore be represented several times in the figures.

    The number of offenders who have received at least one previous conviction, or indeed multiple previous convictions, before receiving their first custodial sentence has decreased under this Government.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Andrew Gwynne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2014-03-13.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the level of personal debt was in (a) the UK, (b) Stockport Metropolitan Borough, (c) Tameside Metropolitan Borough and (d) Denton and Reddish constituency in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

    Nick Hurd

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Gareth Thomas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gareth Thomas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Thomas on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will require the Prudential Regulation Authority to conduct an analysis of recently released personal and business lending data by postcode to examine (a) levels of disparity in lending and (b) progress in achieving financial inclusion; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrea Leadsom

    In July 2013 the Government announced that it had reached an agreement with the major UK banks to publish lending data across 10,000 individual postcodes.

    The first dataset was published in December 2013 and shows the outstanding stock of lending that has been committed to customers across three categories; loans and overdrafts to SMEs, mortgages and unsecured personal loans (excluding credit cards).

    The data will allow challenger banks, smaller building societies, credit unions and community development finance institutions (CDFIs) to find areas where there is a lack of lending so they can offer finance to those customers who are crying out for support to help their business grow.

  • Mr David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Mr David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr David Hanson on 2014-03-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the decision to cancel the e-borders programme was taken.

    James Brokenshire

    The activities of the e-Borders programme have been absorbed into the Border
    Systems Programme. The estimated cost to close the e-Borders programme and
    define the Border Systems Programme was £340,000. These costs are attributable
    to civil servants already in post and there has been no additional expenditure
    or procurement in order to move the work from e-Borders to Border Systems.

    The procurement approach to replacing the primary border security elements of
    the Border Systems Programme will reflect broader Government ICT and Commercial
    strategy, and there will be no single, large supplier. The Home Office will
    lead development, with services procured from a range of providers, potentially
    including small and medium enterprises; no tenders have been received at this
    time.

    By March 2015 the Border Systems Programme aims to:

    • Complete resilience of all current business critical systems;
    • Develop replacement primary border security systems;
    • Provide the capability to support commitments on exit checks;
    • Establish a programme for the next generation of Radiological and Nuclear
    detection (Cyclamen);
    • Continue the implementation of second generation e-Gates across the estate;
    • Develop and implement new freight targeting capability for Sea Containers;
    • Establish contracts to purchase new detection equipment;
    • Continue to assure live operations of existing systems.

    The breakdown of FTE Civil Servants engaged by the e-Borders and subsequently
    the Border Systems Programme in each year since 2010, is:

    Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13
    SCS PB 2 1 1 1 0
    SCS PB 1 2 1 2 2
    G6 7.8 7.8 7.8 9.8
    G7 11.8 9.8 10.8 17.8
    SEO/HMI 33.5 34.7 48.8 49.7
    HEO/CIO 26 25.4 22.5 30.9
    EO/IO 22 19.3 25 20.8
    AO/PS 7 5 5 3

  • Mark Pritchard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Mark Pritchard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Pritchard on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in the United Arab Emirates on the alleged torture of UK citizens in UAE prisons.

    Hugh Robertson

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes allegations of mistreatment of any British national overseas extremely seriously. With the permission of an individual, we will always formally raise these with the host government. We have raised our concerns on a number of specific cases in the UAE and will continue to use the Ministerial Taskforce and other opportunities to raise consular issues when necessary, including those relating to British Nationals in detention.

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-03-13.

    To ask the Prime Minister, whether the possibility of Israel (a) disarming its nuclear weapons capability and (b) joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was discussed with (i) his Israeli counterpart, (ii) other Israeli ministers and (iii) members of the Knesset during his visit to Israel on 12 and 13 March 2014.

    David Cameron

    I did not discuss this issue during my recent visit to Israel.

    The Government consistently call on Israel to join the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state and to agree a full scope Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We continue to support the objective of a Middle East free from Weapons of Mass Destruction and continue to encourage Israel to participate in discussions to that end.

  • Mark Williams – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Mark Williams – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Williams on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Answer of 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 29W, if he will make an assessment of the effect of US regulatory authorities’ interventions in the gold market on gold market-related securities in ISAs.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government monitors developments in the gold market including, where relevant, regulatory action in other jurisdictions. The Government is committed to taking action, whenever necessary, to ensure the efficient functioning of these essential markets.

  • Toby Perkins – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Toby Perkins – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Toby Perkins on 2014-03-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the additional cost to small businesses of abolishing the percentage threshold scheme for recovering statutory sick pay.

    Mike Penning

    The Department for Work and Pensions has published an impact assessment outlining the abolition of the Percentage Threshold Scheme (PTS) and introduction of the new provision of health assessments and occupational health advice available at the following link:

    <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111108468/impacts>

    “

  • Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, with reference to the Answer of 10 April 2014, Official Report, column 381W, on development aid, if she will publish the agreement (a) between her Department, the CDC and ACTIS on the Department for International Development impact fund and (b) between her Department and ACTIS when it was spun off from the CDC; and if she will make a statement.

    Justine Greening

    The agreement between my Department and CDC for the Impact Fund will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

    Copies of the key documents relating to CDC and Actis were placed in the Library of the House by the then Secretary of State for International Development subsequent to his Ministerial Statement on the CDC reorganisation of 12 July 2004.