Blog

  • Lord Pannick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Pannick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pannick on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will be publishing a response to proposals from the European Court of Justice for new rules of procedure that would permit the General Court to take into account, in actions for annulment, confidential information that has not been shown to some of the parties to the proceedings.

    Baroness Warsi

    The Government issued an Explanatory Memorandum on the 25 May April in which it highlighted these proposals as a matter of particular interest. This is a complex and sensitive issue which Governments across the EU are very carefully considering. We are aware of parliamentary interest in this issue and will continue to update on developments. Under the Treaty on European Union national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

    “

  • Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Leader of the House of Lords

    Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Leader of the House of Lords

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe on 2014-06-11.

    To ask the Leader of the House what steps he will take to facilitate the passage of Private Members’ Bills through the House of Lords.

    Lord Hill of Oareford

    Practice in recent years is well-established: Private Members’ Bills introduced in the House of Lords are offered Second Reading slots in the order in which they receive their First Reading. Second Readings for Private Members’ Bills introduced this session have been scheduled on Friday 27 June and Friday 18 July; further Second Readings will be arranged in due course. A ballot to determine the order in which Private Members’ Bills receive their First Reading will be introduced from the start of the new Parliament (3rd Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2013-14).

    For Bills that receive a Second Reading, formal consideration of their remaining stages will be arranged where no amendments are tabled and where the Member in charge so requests. Where Bills receive a Second Reading but require further substantive consideration of amendments, they will be competing for time with Private Members’ Bills that are received from the House of Commons and Private Members’ Bills introduced in this House that are still awaiting a Second Reading.

    My noble friend the Government Chief Whip will endeavour to facilitate the progress of bills in each of those categories.

  • Lord Vinson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Vinson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Vinson on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the cost to public funds, in each of the last five years, of compensation payments to illegal immigrants who had been unlawfully detained beyond the statutory period; and what was the legal aid cost of the lawyers undertaking those compensation claims.

    Lord Faulks

    1 April 2008 we have reported on compensation cases and disclosed information on individual cases where the costs exceeded £250,000. We do not report the individual details on cases below this threshold, or prior to this date.

    Information relating to compensation, ex-gratia and adverse legal costs payments is available and can be found within the Losses and Special Payments disclosure in the UKBA Annual Report and Accounts. These are available on the Home Office Website via the attached link.

    www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=uk-border-agency

    Legal Aid Agency data does not distinguish between false imprisonment claims made by illegal immigrants and those made by other individuals.

    “

  • Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements are in place for a person who was granted a royal pardon between 1987 and 1997 to resist a subsequent prosecution for the crime for which that person has been pardoned in the event of new evidence emerging and the lack of knowledge by the prosecuting authorities of the existence of such a pardon given the absence of records of such pardons having been granted.

    Baroness Randerson

    Following a search of the records held by the Northern Ireland Office, no evidence has been found to indicate that between 1987 and 1997, the RPM was used to do anything other than to remit (i.e. shorten) the sentences of individuals who had already been convicted of offences. It is therefore the release from custody that demonstrates the exercise of the RPM.

  • Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have sought assistance from the Royal Household in recovering records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997.

    Baroness Randerson

    The review of Departmental record keeping ordered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is ongoing.

    Northern Ireland Office officials continue to seek information on use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) for the years 1987 to 1997. This includes contact with the Royal Household to ascertain whether they hold any relevant information.

  • Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the reported loss of records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997 applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Lord Faulks

    The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy may currently take one of three forms:

    i) The grant of a Free Pardon;

    ii) The grant of a conditional Pardon;

    iii) Remission of all or part of a penalty

    By Constitutional convention, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (in succession to the Home Secretary) is responsible, in England and Wales (and the Channel Islands), for recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to grant a Royal Pardon. In Northern Ireland the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for reserved matters and the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland for devolved matters. In Scotland it is devolved to the First Minister. The Secretary of State for Defence also has the responsibility in relation to members of the armed forces.

    Each department or administration is responsible for maintaining their records. I am not aware of any problems with retrieving such records for this period relating to royal pardons granted on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Justice.

  • Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Office of the Attorney General has any records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997.

    Lord Wallace of Tankerness

    The Attorney General has no formal role in the issue of Royal Pardons and therefore there are no records of Royal Pardons held by the Attorney General’s Office.

  • Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Empey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to recover records of royal pardons granted between 1987 and 1997.

    Baroness Randerson

    The review of Departmental record keeping ordered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is ongoing.

    Northern Ireland Office officials continue to seek information on use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) for the years 1987 to 1997. This includes contact with other Government Departments where relevant material might be held.

  • Lord Bradley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Bradley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bradley on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the adequacy of National Health Service community physiotherapy services for patients who have had (1) knee, and (2) hip, replacement operations.

    Earl Howe

    No assessment has been made centrally of the adequacy of National Health Service community physiotherapy services for either hip or knee replacement operations.

    The commissioning of community therapy services is a matter for clinical commissioning groups using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance where available.

    Recently, case-mix adjusted health gain following hip and knee replacement has been added to the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Tool “Commissioning for Value”. This data should facilitate conversations between commissioners and their provider trusts.

    The Health & Social Care Information Centre publishes a National Joint Registry (NJR) of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), which measures health gain in patients undergoing hip replacement, knee replacement, varicose vein and groin hernia surgery in England, based on responses to questionnaires before and after surgery.

    The Best Practice Tariff for total hip and knee replacements pays for the whole episode of surgery and hospital based rehabilitation. Payment of the Best Practice Tariff for primary hip and knee replacement surgery is conditional on criteria linked to data collected through the NJR PROMs. If a provider’s NJR PROMs falls into the lowest 5% nationally in terms of outcomes the commissioner is able to remove the Best Practice Tariff funding unless a plan is made for how to improve the services.

  • Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2014-06-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by Lord Nash on 9 June (HL Deb, col 167), whether the investigation by the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education into the handling of the Trojan horse allegations in 2010 will be made public; and what is the timeframe for the report.

    Lord Nash

    The Secretary of State has asked the Permanent Secretary to conduct an internal review into how the Department for Education dealt with warnings in Birmingham since the formation of this Government in 2010, and before. The Permanent Secretary intends to present his findings to the Secretary of State later in the summer.