Blog

  • Pat Glass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Pat Glass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pat Glass on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on cases in which workers do not receive compensation awarded by an employment tribunal because the companies which were paying them less than the national minimum wage have moved into voluntary liquidation.

    Nick Boles

    The Government is committed to the effective enforcement of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and will take tough action where employers are found to have underpaid their staff. BIS Ministers regularly discuss issues of enforcement with colleagues in other relevant Departments to ensure the system is effective.

    Ensuring employees get the money they are owed is a priority. Where employees are owed monies but their employer has gone in to liquidation, they are entitled to claim for the difference between their rate of pay and the NMW, through the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service (RPS). The RPS will consider these claims and make payments, within certain statutory limits, to employees.

    The Government has also taken action to strengthen the enforcement powers available for NMW breaches, including ensuring that every criminal breach of the NMW Act is considered for Director Disqualification.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, to have been a success, and if so, on what basis.

    Lord Dunlop

    I have nothing further to add to my earlier responses on parity of esteem.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will list all the occasions they discussed parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, with the government of Ireland; who attended; on what date; what was discussed; and what action, if any, was taken.

    Lord Dunlop

    As has been explained previously to the Noble Lord, the UK and Irish Governments meet regularly at ministerial and official level to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern. These include matters relating to the implementation of the Belfast Agreement.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid for the inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 to (1) the government legal team and (2) the chairman.

    Lord Faulks

    The report of Lord Hutton’s Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly was published on 28 January 2004. The inquiry website indicates that staff costs for the inquiry secretariat were £145,975 and that the cost of external advice, including lawyers’ fees, was £990,303. No fees are shown as having been paid to Lord Hutton. No further breakdown of costs is available.

  • Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), how they arrived at their assessment that in-country seizure could double with the use of the extended powers enabled by the new illegal working offence.

    Lord Bates

    The Government arrived at this assessment based on the impact of the court’s judgement in the case of Nuro on the ability of Home Office Immigration Enforcement to use Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) cash seizure powers which were conferred on immigration officers by section 24 of the UK Border Act 2007. The courts have held (Nuro v Home Office [2014]) that as it is not a criminal offence for an illegal immigrant who is not subject to immigration conditions to be self employed in the UK, there is insufficient causation between the offence of illegal entry to the UK and obtaining the earnings to apply POCA powers. The creation of the offence of illegal working will address this judgment and provide a broader basis for cash seizure.

  • Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), which immigration offences led, following conviction, to the forfeiture of assets totalling £966,024 in 2014–15; and how much was forfeited in total for each offence.

    Lord Bates

    There were 16 confiscation orders amounting to £966,024, these are broken down to the following offences.

    Offence

    Amount

    Forgery and Counterfeiting

    £162,997.55

    Facilitation investigation

    £10,665.95

    Sham Marriage – assisting unlawful immigration

    £85,519.29

    Fraud and Money Laundering

    £2.00

    Conspiracy to Facilitate a Breach of Immigration Law

    £25,466.62

    Conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration

    £330,352.72

    Fraud by false representation

    £1,020.32

    Assisting Unlawful Immigration into the UK

    £350,000.00

    In the case of Money Laundering, the small total is because of nominal confiscation orders. A nominal confiscation order for a small amount (such as £1), may be imposed where the court finds that the defendant has benefitted from his criminal conduct, but has no realisable assets. If circumstances change then the order can be revisited.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the ability of Kurds in south-east Turkey to live in secular, democratic and gender-equal communities.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Turkish government recognises promoting gender equality and preventing violence against women amongst the range of human rights issues it is committed to addressing. Prime Minister Davutoğlu spoke publicly on 9 December about the importance his government attaches to these issues. We have welcomed the previous measures taken by the Turkish government, such as the 2013 “democratisation package”, to improve rights for minority groups in Turkey and to resolve the Kurdish issue through the peace process but, as the EU’s Annual Progress Report highlights, there is more progress to be made. We want the peace process to be resumed, building on previous progress.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the recent deaths of Kurdish men and youths in Van and other parts of south-east Turkey since 1 January; and whether they have made representations to the government of Turkey about that matter.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The ongoing violence in the predominantly Kurdish areas of south east Turkey, including Van, is extremely concerning. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) continues to kill members of the Turkish police service and security forces in violent terrorist attacks. We believe Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself against the PKK, whose attacks we condemn as we condemn all terrorism. Our thoughts are with the victims of these attacks, and the civilians who have been caught up in the violence. We have been clear, in public and private, that PKK violence must end and we support a return to the peace process, in the interests of Turkey and the region. We stand ready to help in any way we can. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), and our Ambassador to Turkey have emphasised the need to respect human rights and the importance of avoiding civilian casualties to the Government of Turkey.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 8 January (HL4766), what is their assessment of the adequacy of railway links between London and South-West England.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The National Infrastructure Commission is not currently undertaking work on railway links between London and South West England.

    Network Rail assessed the adequacy of the rail links between London and the South West as part of the rail industry’s Long Term Planning Process. The Western & Wessex Route Studies form part of this process and develop options for future services and for investment in the rail network up to 2043.

    The options set out in the Route Studies are based on a regional and route based interpretation of the outputs and demand forecasts from previous market studies.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 29 December 2015 (HL4764), whether they will list the social and environmental influences that they take into account when defining character or the propensity to commit crime.

    Lord Bates

    An individual’s character and propensity to offend are influenced by a range of factors, but could include social aspects of a person’s upbringing or their environment.

    As the Home Secretary has set out, there is nothing inevitable about criminality, however, and most people do not go on to become criminals whatever circumstances they grow up in. And it is important to remember that the only cause of a crime is, in the end, the criminal. The government’s Modern Crime Prevention Strategy will focus on tackling the six key drivers of crime, including character, and will be published in the spring.