Blog

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

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of detainees held in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre are receiving medication for mental health problems; and what proportion of those detainees have had their dosage increased since being held in detention.

    Alistair Burt

    Information on the number of detainees who are prescribed a particular medicine or any changes in prescriptions is not collected centrally.

    It is essential that any person detained within the immigration detention estate receives medical attention appropriate to their clinical needs. Health professionals should assess and keep under review the medicines requirements for each individual to determine the best course of action for that patient, taking into account their views and preferences.

    Health providers at Yarl’s Wood have now established a Health and Wellbeing Group for detainees in recognition of the anxiety levels that many detainees exhibit when they arrive in the establishment. This group supports the detainees to feel less disempowered in their environment and, as such, can pre-empt the escalation of anxiety which when not acknowledged, can lead to more serious mental health presentations.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 17 November 2015 to Question 15325, how any of those asylum claims resulted in a positive asylum decision.

    James Brokenshire

    Of those claims which have received a decision, 486 received a positive outcome.

  • David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Davis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the cost of reimbursing communication service providers under the provisions of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill in the first 10 years in which an Act arising from that draft bill is in force.

    Mr John Hayes

    The draft Bill requires the retention of additional data, known as internet connection records, by domestic CSPs who are under a data retention notice, to ensure that those responsible for law enforcement continue to have the powers they need to acquire communications data as technology develops and threats change.

    The Government published an estimate of the additional cost of this provision of £174.2m over the 10 year period in the Communications Data Impact Assessment, alongside the draft Bill on 4 November.

  • Christopher Chope – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 29 October 2015 to Question 12956, how many of the suspicious activity reports received under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been investigated; and how many prosecutions have resulted from those investigations.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Department does not hold this information in the format requested.

    All Suspicious Activity Reports received are subject to an initial assessment by the UK Financial Investigation Unit (UKFIU) in the National Crime Agency. The UKFIU Terrorist Finance Team identifies and acts upon SAR information relating to the detection and investigation of terrorist finance, whether submitted under the Terrorism Act (TACT) or the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

    Over the reporting period, the National Crime Agency received 1216 Suspicious Activity Reports under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000. These SARs were disseminated to the National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit (NTFIU) and the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) network, to make an assessment of what further action was needed and in order for the information to be available in support of counter-terrorist investigations.

    In many cases, a SAR will not merit a specific detailed investigation. However, the information remains searchable and may be used at any time to inform the development of intelligence and operational targeting.

  • Louise Ellman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Louise Ellman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Ellman on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Attorney General, whether he plans to change the arrangements or level of funding for specialist rape and sexual offence prosecutors; and if he will make a statement.

    Robert Buckland

    Any consideration of future funding proposals would form part of the Spending Review which will be announced in due course.

    However, the CPS has been refocusing its existing resources to support Rape and Serious Sexual Offence (RASSO) units, including through a recruitment exercise to increase the size of the units and an extensive training programme to further support staff within them. The CPS is also working closely with the police through a high-level RASSO Steering Group to further ensure the consistent application of policies, including in relation to the seeking and provision of early investigative advice.

  • Tom Elliott – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tom Elliott – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Elliott on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the extent to which Northern Ireland’s land border with another EU member state creates a challenge in protecting Northern Ireland from terrorist threats.

    Mr John Hayes

    The UK and the Republic of Ireland have long enjoyed a Common Travel Area (CTA) free of routine border controls. However, there are long-established and effective working relationships between the police and intelligence agencies in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to mitigate threats. The Government takes protecting our border security very seriously, and there is a high level of collaboration on work with the Republic of Ireland to also strengthen the CTA’s external border.

  • Nigel Dodds – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Nigel Dodds – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nigel Dodds on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.

    Mike Penning

    Since 20 May 2015, the National Crime Agency (NCA) has been operating with full powers in Northern Ireland. As the NCA reported to the Northern Ireland Policing Board on 01 October 2015, the scope of NCA’s crime-fighting capability within the jurisdiction has increased. During the period April-June 2015, the NCA recorded 26 disruptions against organised crime groups and high priority threats operating in Northern Ireland. The NCA has worked in partnership with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the support that the NCA provides law enforcement partners, particularly the PSNI has been enhanced.

    The NCA is committed to playing its role in tackling serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland. The NCA will be fully engaged in delivering the commitment outlined in ‘A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan’ to undertake a concerted and enhanced effort to combat serious and organised and cross border crime.

  • Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she intends to lay before Parliament her report on the steps she will take in relation to the powers conferred by section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act on independent child trafficking advocates.

    Karen Bradley

    Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting.

  • Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Frank Field – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to publish the report on overseas domestic worker visas carried out by James Ewins.

    James Brokenshire

    Mr Ewins’s report has been submitted to the Home Office and will be published shortly.

  • Hannah Bardell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Hannah Bardell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what her policy is on accepting asylum claims from (a) Syrian refugees who have reached the UK travelling through other EU member states without claiming asylum in one of those states and (b) such refugees who reside with family members who have a right to reside in the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    Asylum seekers should not travel through safe countries illegally and then choose where to claim asylum.

    If we have evidence that a Syrian asylum seeker is the responsibility of another European country we can and will seek to return them there under the Dublin Regulation. Similarly, if we have evidence that the person claiming asylum in the UK has already been granted international protection by another European country we will also seek to remove them to the country that granted protection. When making a decision on whether to remove refugees under the Dublin Regulation full consideration is given to the right to family and private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

    The Dublin Regulation does contain family unity provisions which may result in the responsible State being that where an asylum seeker’s close family members are legally present. The asylum seeker would, however, in the first instance need to make an asylum application in the country that they are in, in order for the provision to be considered.