Blog

  • Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to encourage police forces to allocate adequate resources towards reducing the incidence of dog fighting.

    Mike Penning

    Whilst the government takes the issue of dog fighting seriously, the allocation of police resources to tackle this abhorrent practice is a matter for individual police forces, and we have introduced Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that police force priorities across England and Wales better reflect those of the communities they serve.

  • Mark Durkan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Mark Durkan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of removing the reasonable person test in defence for children from the Modern Slavery Bill.

    Karen Bradley

    The statutory defence is an important additional protection for victims of
    modern slavery who have been compelled to commit certain offences as a direct
    consequence of their slavery or trafficking situation. In addition, the Crown
    Prosecution Service will continue to use its discretion to not charge an
    offence or discontinue a prosecution which is not required, in the public
    interest.

    It is imperative that the defence protects child victims of modern slavery from
    being inappropriately criminalised whilst also avoiding providing complete
    immunity for the most serious categories of offending. The reasonable person
    test is an important safeguard in ensuring that the defence cannot be abused.

    The defence for child victims has been amended in the House of Lords to remove
    the requirement for compulsion and we have also tabled an amendment at Lord’s
    Report of the Modern Slavery Bill to the reasonable person test for child
    victims to make it easier for child victims to gain protection from the
    statutory defence. This amendment will remove the reference to the child having
    no realistic alternative to committing the offence and will mean that once the
    defence is raised, the prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt
    that the child acted unreasonably in committing the offence.

  • Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the guaranteed fulfilment period is for (a) issuing new and (b) renewing (i) children’s and (ii) adult passports.

    Mike Penning

    The gov.uk website sets out expected turnaround times for applications made in
    the UK and, on a country-by-country basis, for applications made overseas. HM
    Passport Office aims to deal with applications within published turnaround
    times, but this is a guideline only as there are a number of factors that can
    affect how long it takes to process an application.
    The premium and fast track service provide a guaranteed turnaround period of
    four hours and seven days respectively on payment of an additional fee,
    provided the applicant has submitted all the relevant information and the
    necessary security requirements are met.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tracey Crouch – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tracey Crouch on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make an assessment of the merits of increasing (a) funding and (b) other Government support for (i) the KCA Riskit Project and (ii) other early intervention programmes on drug and alcohol misuse by young people, and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    Ring-fenced 2015/16 public health allocations allow local authorities to plan and commission the services their communities need most, including those for young people vulnerable to risk taking behaviour such as the Riskit Project, and others including prevention and early intervention programmes. Schools can and do pay for these programmes and local authorities and the National Health Service are also free to find additional funds for them.

    The case for early intervention and prevention is clear as the consequences of poor health in adolescence last a lifetime and incur costs in the long run.

    This assessment underpins Public Health England’s significant early intervention and prevention support offer. This includes the ‘Young people’s health and wellbeing: a framework for public health’ and the Child and Maternal Health Observatory (ChiMat) site, which provides data and guidelines to support to local authorities. Government also funds the Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Information Service which is a platform for sharing information and resources aimed at schools and practitioners working in drug and alcohol prevention.

  • Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Philip Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the extent of dog fighting in the UK.

    George Eustice

    We have not been provided with any recent estimate of the extent of dog fighting by either the police or animal welfare organisations.

  • Laurence Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Laurence Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential cost to businesses of prohibiting the use of strong encryption; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office have received a number of representations from members of the
    public on encryption. This Government supports the use of encryption, which
    helps keep personal data and intellectual property safe. It is also vital that
    the security and intelligence agencies can access unencrypted data to prevent
    threats to our national security, when it is necessary and proportionate to do
    so. We will continue to engage with industry regarding these issues.

  • Laurence Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Laurence Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what representations she has received about the feasibility of the technical work involved in prohibiting the use of strong encryption; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office have received a number of representations from members of the
    public on encryption. This Government supports the use of encryption, which
    helps keep personal data and intellectual property safe. It is also vital that
    the security and intelligence agencies can access unencrypted data to prevent
    threats to our national security, when it is necessary and proportionate to do
    so. We will continue to engage with industry regarding these issues.

  • Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 5 February 2015 to Question 222873, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that UK users who acquire non-human primates ensure breeders and suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place; how such controls and processes are monitored; and how many UK users have been found not to have sufficient controls and processes in place.

    Lynne Featherstone

    We have taken a number of steps to gain assurances about the quality of non-human primates being imported for research within the legal constraints available to us. We have emphasised to those UK users who acquire these primates that they are responsible for ensuring that the breeders and suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place. In order to be assured that these animals are of appropriate quality for the work authorised on their project licences, they need to be confident of high standards of care and welfare.

    We are aware that, in recent years, these UK users have routinely visited and inspected their overseas primate breeders, and that they do indeed demand these high standards. We are encouraging this to continue.

    Home Office Inspectors assigned to establishments holding and using imported primates play a key role in monitoring the situation. Through inspection visits and other contact with animal care staff, inspectors maintain awareness of the importations of primates, both consignments already acquired and those due. This enables appropriately timed inspections to be carried out to monitor the quality of animals being acquired.

    We also expect the local inspector to be notified promptly in the event of any significant health or welfare problems which may occur following arrival of an importation of primates. Should a particular source be shown to be delivering primates of unacceptable quality from the perspective of their health and welfare, we will deal with this through the relevant licence authorisation.

    No UK users have been found to have insufficient controls and processes in place.

  • Chris Williamson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Chris Williamson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Williamson on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to publish the Government response to the Consultation on the review of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, published in May 2014; and if it remains her intention for any amendments to the legislation arising from the consultation to be made before the dissolution of Parliament.

    Lynne Featherstone

    The consultation on revising Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has now concluded. Draft proposals are with other Government departments for consideration and I intend to make an announcement in due course.

  • Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Helen Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Jones on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she has had with (a) chief constables and (b) organisations dealing with violence against women on the training requirements for police officers when coercive control becomes a criminal offence; and if she will make a statement.

    Lynne Featherstone

    We are committed to ensuring the police and other frontline agencies have the
    tools they need to respond effectively to domestic abuse. That is why on 18
    December, the Home Secretary announced her intention to create a specific
    offence of domestic abuse.

    The offence will not come into force until frontline agencies are properly
    trained to operate it effectively. An implementation plan, which will consider
    funding issues, is currently being developed with the police and College of
    Policing. The College is working with CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against
    Domestic Abuse) to pilot an intensive programme of training including domestic
    abuse and coercive control. An evaluation will be carried out following the
    pilot to ensure that the training will make a significant contribution to long
    term improvements to policing of domestic abuse and will be an important factor
    in driving a culture change in the police so that domestic abuse is treated as
    the serious crime that it is.

    The new offence of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’, as well as the wider
    issue of training for police officers on domestic abuse, has been discussed
    at the National Oversight Group on domestic abuse, established and chaired by
    the Home Secretary. The purpose of the group is to implement and monitor activity
    against the recommendations coming out of HMIC’s review of domestic abuse and includes
    both Chief Constable and Third Sector representation.