Blog

  • Lord Scriven – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Scriven – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 8 February (HL5407), whether they were consulted before NHS England announced that it would be introducing a sugar tax by 2020, and if so, what views they expressed.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    There has been a wide-ranging public debate on tackling childhood obesity. We are interested to see the results of NHS England’s consultation on these proposals.

    The Childhood Obesity Strategy will be published in the summer.

  • Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many penalties have been issued to ticket sellers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and how many of those penalties were issued to secondary ticket sellers.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The provisions of Part 3, Chapter 5 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) concern the online secondary ticketing market. The duty in section 90 CRA to provide information about tickets applies to persons re-selling tickets and internet-based secondary ticketing facilities.

    Trading Standards is the enforcement authority in Great Britain for the purposes of the secondary ticketing provisions in the CRA. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is the relevant enforcement authority for Northern Ireland. Where an enforcement authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a duty or prohibition imposed by Chapter 5, the authority may impose a financial penalty on the person in respect of each breach.

    HMG does not hold information on the number of penalties issued under the secondary ticketing provisions of the CRA.

  • Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that primary and secondary ticket companies that are based abroad comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 when selling tickets in the UK.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    When selling to UK customers, primary and secondary ticketing platforms, whether based in or outside the UK, are required to comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and mandatory UK consumer law protections.

    Her Majesty’s Government issued guidance to business when the new ticketing provisions, contained in the CRA, came into force.

    Trading Standards Services are responsible for enforcing the secondary ticketing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other relevant consumer protection legislation. Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action.

  • Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that online secondary ticket companies are properly monitoring and countering potential ticket touting, in compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Her Majesty’s Government issued guidance to business when the new ticketing provisions, contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, came into force.

    Trading Standards Services are responsible for enforcing the secondary ticketing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other relevant consumer protection legislation. Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action.

    Since the ticketing provisions contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 27 May 2015, an independent Review has been established (as required by the Act) to consider consumer protection measures in relation to online ticket re-sales. The Review is looking at the available evidence and will report by 26 May 2016.

  • Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pendry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address investigations by Which? and 5 Live that found that secondary ticket sites are carrying ticket listings that are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Trading Standards Services are responsible for enforcing the secondary ticketing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other relevant consumer protection legislation. Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action.

    Since the ticketing provisions contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 27 May 2015, an independent Review has been established (as required by the Act) to consider consumer protection measures in relation to online ticket re-sales. The Review is looking at the available evidence and will report by 26 May 2016.

  • Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which particular EU directive or regulation has led to banks, credit companies and stores reviewing their loyalty schemes in order to differentiate between points earned from transactions inside and outside an institution, and how the UK voted when that matter was decided in the Council of Ministers.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government has been determined to tackle the unfair fees being charged to UK businesses for processing card transactions through the Interchange Fee Regulation, which came into force in December 2015. In order to make sure that consumers as well as businesses benefit as a result of the Interchange Fee Regulation, the UK negotiated through the revised Payment Services Directive capping or, in some cases banning completely, the charges that some businesses ask of customers who pay by debit or credit card.

    We are aware that some banks and other companies are cutting back on their customer rewards packages to recoup costs they face as a result of the interchange fee caps. However, this is a commercial decision on the part of these companies – not all firms have followed suit.

  • Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the permanent members of the UN Security Council support the UK’s proposal to the Conference on Disarmament, as set out by the UK Permanent Representative to that Conference in his letter of 19 February (CD/2055).

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Discussions on this are still at an early stage and it would be inappropriate for the UK to comment on other States’ positions before they are made public. However, we hope that all members of the UN Conference on Disarmament can support the UK proposal to establish a working group and an associated programme of work.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent homelessness among victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals with positive Conclusive Grounds National Referral Mechanism decisions on their departure from the government-funded victim care contract.

    Lord Bates

    During the recovery and reflection period, support providers work with the victim of modern slavery to produce a detailed and tailored ‘move on plan’. Following a positive Conclusion Grounds decision, victims are entitled to a further 14 days of support, at which time the ‘move on plan’ assists the victim in their transition from the specialist service. The victim either returns to their home country or if they wish to stay and are eligible to do so move on to access mainstream support services in the UK. In addition, the Home Office considers extension requests for victims who need longer than 14 days to make the transition from the specialist service on a case-by-case basis.

    On leaving the Government-funded service that is provided under the victim care contract, victims who are EEA nationals may be able to exercise Treaty rights and remain lawfully in the UK on that basis but those who are not exercising such rights are encouraged to return home unless they are entitled to remain on other grounds. The Home Office also considers whether to grant Discretionary Leave to victims who are unable to exercise free movement rights where there are particularly compelling circumstances, they need to stay in the UK to pursue a compensation claim or to assist with police inquiries/investigations.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance regarding the rights and treatment of victims of human trafficking has been issued to Home Office staff responsible for making decisions about the administrative removal of EEA nationals, and what specific guidance has been given to caseworkers about the criteria for determining whether or not the administrative removal of a confirmed victim of human trafficking who is an EEA national is proportionate.

    Lord Bates

    The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

    The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

    No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

    Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what processes are in place, and what action they have taken, to ensure that EEA nationals who have made applications for discretionary leave to remain (DLR) as confirmed victims of human trafficking are not considered for administrative removal until a decision has been made about their application for DLR.

    Lord Bates

    The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

    The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

    No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

    Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.