UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department collects on the number of men in prison who have been victims of sexual abuse.

    Jeremy Wright

    Prisoners are assessed on entry to prison for addiction problems and there is a package of support available to them. The MoJ’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme will provide individual support to all released prisoners. This will include identifying risks and needs for individual ex-prisoners, and providing services to address them.

    The Ministry of Justice does not collect these data centrally on a regular basis. However, a survey of 1,435 adult prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in 2005 and 2006 (Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction – SPCR) provides self-reported estimates for each question.

    The full reports can be accessed on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/surveying-prisoner-crime-reduction-spcr

    “

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the action by barristers on (a) 6 January 2014 and (b) 7 March 2014; and what his policy is on imposing a costs sanction on the barristers involved.

    Shailesh Vara

    We have not yet made an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of the action by barristers on 6 January and 7 March 2014. The question of costs is a matter for judges to consider in individual cases under the provisions set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (as amended).

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received (i) a conditional discharge, (ii) a fine, (iii) a community order and (iv) a suspended prison sentence.

    Jeremy Wright

    The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.

    The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.

    Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (latest data available) can be viewed in the table.

    Please note that court proceedings statistics for the year 2013 are planned to be published by the Ministry of Justice in May 2014.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received a prison sentence; and what the average prison sentence was for those of each gender so convicted.

    Jeremy Wright

    The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.

    The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.

    Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (latest data available) can be viewed in the table.

    Please note that court proceedings statistics for the year 2013 are planned to be published by the Ministry of Justice in May 2014.

  • Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she intends to answer Named Day written question 185520 tabled on 28 January 2014 for answer on 3 February 2014; and what the reasons are for the delay in answering this question.

    James Brokenshire

    I replied to the hon. Member on 13 March 2014, Official Report, column 533W.

  • Ms Karen Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Ms Karen Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ms Karen Buck on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the (a) change and (b) percentage change was in the number of homelessness acceptances arising from the end of a private sector tenancy in each (i) London local authority and (ii) English region between March 2010 and December 2013.

    Kris Hopkins

    To assist public scrutiny, I have placed in the Library of the House, a table showing homelessness acceptances due to loss of private sector tenancy, by local authority, in each year from 2003 to 2013.

    Data is not collected by Parliamentary constituency. My Department does not publish statistics by the former government office regions.

    The dataset shows that under the last Administration, the average numbers were higher than under this Administration, especially when taking account the changes in the overall size to the private rented sector.

    I would note that the rental sector policies of HM Opposition would make the problem worse, by reducing the availability of private rented accommodation, forcing up rents and discouraging investment in the private rented sector. By contrast, this Government is increasing house building, delivering £19.5 billion of investment in affordable housing, supporting billions of private investment in new private rented accommodation, providing £470 million to prevent and tackle all forms of homelessness, and avoiding the excessive regulation which would harm the interests of tenants.

  • Ms Karen Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Ms Karen Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ms Karen Buck on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many and what proportion of London households in temporary accommodation were in (a) private sector leased properties, (b) hotels, (c) bed and breakfast, (d) local authority registered social landlord property and (e) other accommodation (i) at the most recent date for which figures are available and (ii) at 31 March 2010.

    Kris Hopkins

    [Holding Reply: Monday 17 March 2014]

    To assist public scrutiny, I have placed in the Library of the House, a table which provides quarterly figures for the last ten years.

    Over that period, the numbers of households in temporary accommodation in London in this Government is far lower than averaged under the last Administration. The peak of 63,800 households in December 2005 compares to 42,430 in December 2013.

    Councils have a responsibility to move homeless households into settled accommodation as quickly as possible and we made common sense changes to the law to enable them to use suitable private rented homes. The average stay in temporary accommodation in England has been reduced from 20 months at the beginning of 2010 to 14 months now, which means that people on average are spending far less time in such temporary accommodation.

    We have also seen a 42% reduction in the numbers of families with children in Bed and Breakfast for more than six weeks on this time last year across the country. The seven local authorities that my Department has funded to tackle families in Bed and Breakfast have made significant progress, achieving an overall reduction of 96% since the funding began.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the effect on stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax receipts of the introduction of a so-called mansion tax designed to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the average annual payment required from each property valued above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the number of properties valued at more than (a) £2 million and (b) £5 million.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.