Blog

  • Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many contracted staff there are carrying out functions for his Department who are paid less than the Living Wage by (a) occupation, (b) location and (c) contractor.

    Mike Penning

    DWP have discussed with contractors the payment of the London Living Wage. Telereal Trillium have worked with us so that from April 2014 all of their London based staff were paid at least the level of the living wage. Discussions are continuing with our other major contractor, Cofely.

    We intend to have the same negotiations regarding staff based across the regions where the situation is currently:

    REGION

    NUMBER OF STAFF

    Scotland

    539

    North East

    309

    North West

    885

    Yorks & Humber

    529

    East Midlands

    255

    West Midlands

    770

    East Of England

    252

    Wales

    279

    South East

    366

    London

    2

    South West

    307

    TOTAL

    4,493

    It is not possible to provide further breakdown of these figures as this information is commercially sensitive.

  • Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Frank Field – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to protect consumers from fraud and other doorstep crimes.

    Jenny Willott

    The Government takes doorstep crime very seriously and the issue has been identified as a top priority by the Consumer Protection Partnership (CPP) which brings together enforcement, consumer education, and advocacy partners to identify, prioritise and coordinate collective action to tackle the issues causing greatest harm to consumers.

    Both the National Trading Standards Board (NTSB) and Trading Standards Scotland (TSS), which are funded by BIS, are putting resources into tackling doorstep crime and Trading Standards Officers across the country are cracking down on these fraudsters. In Lincolnshire for example, Trading Standards has teamed up with the Police and Community Lincs to raise awareness of doorstep crime amongst professionals caring for the elderly, including awareness of bogus callers, rogue traders, distraction burglary, and scam mail. To date 330 health and social care professionals who work regularly with 4,300 elderly and vulnerable people have been trained in how to spot potential victims and how to intervene at an early stage of a scam.

    Doorstep Crime will also be the focus on this year’s National Consumer Week in November 2014, when CPP Partners and the Government will work together to in raise consumer awareness of how to spot a bogus salesperson and where to report it.

    We are also hitting the perpetrators of fraud hard. A recent operation involving Trading Standards companies across the country and 20 police forces brought down a trio of fraudsters targeting vulnerable caravan park residents across the country. This resulted in 6 years of custodial sentences being handed down and the recovery of £20,000 in cash.

    We encourage anyone who believes that they have been the victim of doorstep crime or fraud to contact the Citizens Advice Consumer helpline on 08454 040506.

  • Liz Kendall – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Liz Kendall – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Liz Kendall on 2014-05-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he intends to answer Question 195074, from the hon. Member for Leicester West, on social care providers and non-payments of the National Minimum Wage.

    Mr David Gauke

    I have done so today.

  • Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jesse Norman on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the total value is of Common Agricultural Policy payments to farms in Herefordshire in the last five years for which data are available.

    George Eustice

    Our records do not currently distinguish between farms and other claimants; the figure provided relates to all eligible claimants paid (including farms).

    The total value of all Common Agricultural Policy claims paid by the Rural Payments Agency and the Forestry Commission to all claimants with a registered address in Herefordshire during the 5 years up to 15 October 2013 was €261,476,438.25.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Environment Agency classifies as a watercourse; if he will ensure that insurance companies can differentiate between major watercourses and watercourses of no consequence; and if he will make a statement.

    Dan Rogerson

    The Environment Agency defines a “Watercourse” according to section 72(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991. It includes all rivers and streams and all ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dikes, sluices, sewers (other than public sewers within the meaning of the Water Industry Act 1991) and passages, through which water flows.

    Insurance companies take into account a range of factors in setting policy premiums and excesses, and different insurers take different approaches to assessing flood risk. Certain insurance companies would use proximity to a watercourse to assess the risk of flooding to a property, whilst other companies may use postcodes to assess flood risk or their own flood risk models.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many away days his Department held in (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14; and (i) what cost was incurred and (ii) who was in attendance at each such day.

    Mr Francis Maude

    The information requested is not held centrally.

  • Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Iain McKenzie on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she has made an assessment of the UK Border Force’s ability to process passengers at Glasgow Airport for the forthcoming Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    Border Force planning for the Commonwealth Games has been underway since
    December 2012. Border Force is currently working with Glasgow Airport to
    refurbish the arrivals control, providing an increased number of arrivals desks
    and utilising the latest technology in the form of electronic passport gates.
    This will enhance the arrivals experience at Glasgow and the increased capacity
    will ensure that passengers pass through the arrivals area as quickly as
    possible while, at the same time, maintaining border security.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, if she will publish the names of those people who received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; and when and for what reasons it was granted to each.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, when she first became aware that records on grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 had been lost.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, in what circumstances the information pertaining to grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 was lost; and what steps she plans to take to recover that information.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.