The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many magistrates have resigned from their positions in each of the last 24 months.
Mr Shailesh Vara
It is not possible to provide the requested information at this time, as the central database on which the information is recorded is being replaced. I will write to the honourable member in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people diagnosed with a mental health condition received a custodial sentence in each of the last five years.
Ben Gummer
This information is not available centrally.
Health Needs Assessments of all prisons and young offender institutions in England, which are being conducted by Public Health England, NHS England and the National Offender Management Service, will provide an analysis of the prevalence of mental health diagnosis amongst people of all ages held in custody and the services needed to support their needs.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and agencies overseen by his Department will be affected by that Regulation; and what estimate he has made of the potential liability of his Department, its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed Regulation.
Dominic Raab
Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and our negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, NDPBs and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Hammond on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation; which non-departmental public body (NDPB) and agencies overseen by her Department will be affected by that Regulation; and what estimate she has made of the potential liability of her Department and its agencies and NDPBs in connection with that proposed Regulation.
Mr Desmond Swayne
Negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation are still continuing and the United Kingdom’s negotiating position has taken into account the likely impact on Government Departments, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and agencies. Once the outcome of trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission are complete, and the Regulation has been adopted, the liabilities will be further assessed. There will then follow a maximum implementation period of two years. Between now and then, Government departments who will be affected by the Regulation are closely involved in work led by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport to consider the implications of the text as it develops through the negotiating process.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will take steps to reduce aid spending in countries with their own space programme.
Mr Desmond Swayne
No UK aid money is spent on helping developing countries put people in space. We already take the growing ability of emerging economies like India and China to finance their own development programmes into account in reviewing our aid relationship with such countries.
Through the ongoing Bilateral Aid Review, we will decide which countries will receive bilateral funding and how much. We will use a range of criteria to determine allocations to countries, including the level and persistence of extreme poverty in the country and the ability of the government of that country to finance its own development needs.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2015 to Question 9671, what estimate the Government has made of the proportion of UK companies which have joined the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh.
Mr Desmond Swayne
30 UK companies have signed the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh. We do not have comprehensive information on the total number of UK brands purchasing Garments from Bangladesh.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2015 to Question 9671, for what reasons the Government cannot mandate companies to join the 2013 Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh.
Mr Desmond Swayne
The Rana Plaza disaster demonstrated the need for a concerted effort by all stakeholders to address the challenges facing the garments industry in Bangladesh. As well as establishing 2 international initiatives (the Accord and the Alliance), The International Labour Organisation (ILO) worked with the Government of Bangladesh (GoB), employer organisations, and trade union representatives to develop the Tripartite National Plan of Action on Fire Safety and Structural Integrity (NTPA) and in 2014 the Government raised the minimum wage for the country’s garment workers by 77%.
The Accord has been established as a voluntary, independent, legally binding agreement between Trade Unions and brands: we, and the many stakeholders involved, believe this is a more effective mechanism than making it mandatory. We actively encourage UK companies to join the Accord.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the cost to the public purse was of legal fees in the case of Bondada, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (15 October 2015).
James Brokenshire
Costs incurred are £48, 575.35, including applicant’s costs of £31, 118.79.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what fields of data are held about people recorded by CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.
Mike Penning
I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.
The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.
Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.
It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of current legislation regulating the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.
Mike Penning
I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.
The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.
Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.
It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.