Blog

  • Emily Thornberry – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Emily Thornberry – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) barristers, (b) solicitors and (c) witness care staff were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service at the end of (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2009-10.

    Oliver Heald

    The information requested is contained in the following table.

    Barristers

    Solicitors

    Witness Care

    2009-10

    853

    2,353

    228

    2012-13

    677

    1,867

    131

    2013-14

    645

    1,771

    100

    Notes:Data extracted from the CPS HR Database iTrent as at the 31st March in each year
    Data may be subject to change due to retrospective changes in the HR database
    Data may differ from previously published data due to differing specifications

    .

    Notwithstanding the staff reductions, conviction rates have remained broadly unchanged since 2009/10.

    Witness attendance remains constant over the last two financial years (to February 2014).

  • The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Sandwich on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans significantly to reduce the involvement of expert non-legal members in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber; if so, in the light of the volume of deportation appeals and of unrepresented appellants, what alternative provision there will be for expert advice in sensitive cases; and how they will ensure that the public interest is fully represented on panel hearings.

    Lord Faulks

    The panel composition for Tribunals within the unified Tribunal structure are matters for the Senior President of Tribunals under the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. These powers are delegated where appropriate to Chamber Presidents of individual chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. The Senior President published a consultation document regarding the deployment of non-legal members within the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in November 2013. The consultation sought views on whether senior judges within the Chamber should decide on a case-by case basis whether a non-legal member should sit on a Tribunal panel “where the President of First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) or a Resident Judge has decided that there are strong public interest reasons”. The Senior President will publish a response to the consultation on www.judiciary.gov.uk. A copy of the consultation document published in November 2013 is available at the following link:

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-in-detail/judicial+roles/tribunals/senior-president-tribunals .

    “

  • Lord Harries of Pentregarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Harries of Pentregarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Harries of Pentregarth on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on returning gay and lesbian asylum seekers to Uganda.

    Lord Taylor of Holbeach

    All asylum and human rights claims are considered in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. We recognise that, in general, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) persons may be at risk of persecution and warrant protection and that this may have increased following the signing of the Anti-Homosexual Act into law. However, each case needs to be considered on its individual facts.

    Where we consider that an individual does not require protection, and the courts have not reached a different view, then we expect these individuals to leave the UK at the earliest opportunity. If individuals refuse to leave voluntarily, it may become necessary to enforce their removal. Returns are undertaken only when we conclude that it is safe to do so.

  • – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Astor of Hever on 27 March (WS 49–50) regarding a contingent liability for nuclear indemnity, whether, in the light of the statement in the Departmental Minute that the value of the contingent liability is unquantifiable due to the potentially catastrophic nature of a nuclear incident”

    Lord Astor of Hever

    It is our intention to proceed with the Contingent Liability as this work is an essential enabler in allowing the Ministry of Defence to deliver its projects and estate maintenance requirements on estates where nuclear assets are sited.

  • Lord Storey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Storey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent comments by the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, regarding who should lead the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, what consideration they have given to the consequences should the leader of one constituent authority decide to withdraw from the combined authority.

    Baroness Stowell of Beeston

    This Government has helped these councils set up a combined authority, something that all the local leaders asked for. I understand that they are now working together to make it work.

    As I explained during the recent debates in Grand Committee on the draft Orders providing for the establishment of the combined authorities, if in the future councils decide that changes to a combined authority are in the area’s best interest – perhaps another council joining, or one leaving – and the statutory conditions have been met, the Government would seek Parliamentary approval to a new draft Order providing for the changes to take place.

    The Order allows for any local authority to change their representative member on the Combined Authority.

  • Lord Storey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Storey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Stowell of Beeston on 13 March (WA 404), what stipulations, if any, they have placed upon (1) Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, (2) the North East Leadership Board, (3) Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, and (4) West Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of (a) the membership of those bodies, (b) remuneration for their members, and (c) how meetings will be (i) chaired, and (ii) recorded.

    Baroness Stowell of Beeston

    The Orders establishing each Combined Authority specify the membership of the body; and require the election of a chairman and vice-chairman at the first meeting of the Combined Authority and thereafter at its annual meeting. Each member has one vote and there is no casting vote. The Orders also make provision that no remuneration is to be payable to members except for allowances for travel and subsistence in accordance with a scheme drawn up by the Combined Authority. All of the councils concerned consented to these provisions, which were based on proposals originally made by the councils.

    The statutory provisions for the conduct of council meetings apply equally to the conduct of meetings of a Combined Authority, including provisions about the taking and publication of inutes. The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency applies to combined authorities and the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, if approved by Parliament, will also apply.

  • Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Byford on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Michael Fallon MP, Minister of State for Energy, on 5 February (HC Deb, 263W), whether the £100,000 will go to the parish or parishes in which the wellhead and associated workings are placed; and if not, to where it will go.

    Baroness Verma

    The UK Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) has stated that £100,000 will go to the local community in respect of each hydraulically fracked well site at exploration stage. UKOOG has further stated that the exact boundaries of the local community, for this purpose, will be defined on a site-by-site basis in conjunction with local people.

  • Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Byford on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the three crop rule included in the new Common Agricultural Policy relates to single parcels of land owned or rented by one person or company, or whether the entire holding can be treated as one parcel of land.

    Lord De Mauley

    The requirements of the crop diversification measure of greening, also known as the “three crop rule”, apply to the total arable area of a holding.

    Farmers with between 10ha and 30ha of eligible arable land will usually need to grow at least two crops. Farmers with over 30ha of eligible arable land will usually need to grow at least three crops. Compliance with the measure will be assessed at the holding level, not the parcel level.

  • Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Baroness Byford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Byford on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Nick Boles MP, Under Secretary of State for Planning, on 10 February (HC Deb, 418W–419W), whether the reference to the requirement to demonstrate that a proposed development will not increase the flood risk elsewhere refers to the risk in both urban and rural areas.

    Baroness Stowell of Beeston

    Yes, the strict tests on flood risk set out in national planning policy apply to rural and urban areas. These tests include ensuring new development does not increase flood risk elsewhere. In the new planning guidance we launched on 6 March we have made it crystal clear that councils need to consider these tests and where they are not met new development should not be allowed.

  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2014-04-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Northover on 18 March (WA 16), how many programmes are already being implemented to tackle violence against women in Afghanistan; and how many programmes focussing on the other strategic priorities of the Department for International Development in Afghanistan are being implemented.

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire

    Two programmes directly address violence: £3M towards a joint programme with Australia to improve the implementation of laws designed to protect women and girls affected by violence; and £19.9M DFID support to the Tawanmandi programme with grants to Civil Society Organisations, where at least £2M of grants from 2014 will go to organisations primarily focused on the elimination of violence against women and girls.

    Violence is also indirectly addressed through a long term approach of promoting women’s rights, empowerment and education. DFID has a wide range of programmes supporting this agenda, e.g. £4.5M nation-wide support to women’s political participation and the £47M Girls Education Challenge fund improving access to education for 250,000 marginalised girls.