UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2014

  • John Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    John Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Robertson on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps his Department has taken to ensure equality of access to the UKOP, GPSS and MLP UK pipeline systems.

    Michael Fallon

    Both the UKOP and MLP pipeline systems are privately owned and operated and commercial decisions on access are taken by the companies concerned. The Pipelines Act 1962 contains provisions for owners/operators to offer third party access and for any spare capacity to be made available to anyone who wishes to apply for it.

    The GPSS is a government owned pipeline operated by the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA), a public corporation sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. The OPA lets commercial contracts on a similar basis to operators of private pipelines provided these are consistent with Defence requirements. Access to the GPSS may require the agreement of private companies which control ingress points, egress points or other pipelines connected to the network.

    Following the recent cross- government review of the role of both the UK refining and import sectors in UK, and in recognition of pipeline access being cited as an issue by some stakeholders, the new independently chaired Midstream Oil Government and Industry Task Force will take forward further work on this issue.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Kerry McCarthy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what his future plans are for the level of staff and budget resourcing on his Department’s Ending Sexual Violence Initiative.

    Mark Simmonds

    The Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI) Team has been in place since the launch of the Initiative in 2012. The Team is now developing the next phase of the PSVI strategy building on the success of the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, co-hosted by the Foreign Secretary and the Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees from 10 – 13 June 2014. That work includes assessing the necessary future staff and budget requirements to achieve the post-Summit objectives.

  • Luciana Berger – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the costs to the NHS of untreated liver disease in one person.

    Jane Ellison

    The Department has made no recent assessment of the costs to the National Health Service of untreated liver disease.

  • Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Investigation into the Establishment of the Performance and Compliance Unit, published in May 2013, what steps have been taken in response to recommendation 1 of that report.

    James Brokenshire

    Following the reorganisations which flowed from the decision to bring the
    functions of the UK Border Agency back into direct ministerial control, the
    Performance and Compliance Unit no longer exists.

  • 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 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the names are of all prisoners who have absconded from prison and currently not been returned; and if he will specify in each such case (a) the offence each absconder originally committed and (b) the length of custodial sentence they were serving when they absconded.

    Simon Hughes

    I apologise for the delay in replying. The table below provides details of index offence and length of sentence of those absconders who are unlawfully at large having absconded between April 2004 and March 2014 (the most recent period that statistics are available). Information prior to April 2004 could only be collated by performing manual checks across different databases and could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

    In order to disclose the names of absconders who are unlawfully at large, it is necessary to make appropriate checks to ensure that disclosure will not jeopardise ongoing Police operations to recapture the offender, will not place any one else in danger and to ensure that any victim has been informed of both the abscond and release of the name. These checks are still on-going and I will write shortly as soon as the information has been prepared.

    The number of absconds has reduced by 80% over the last 10 years.

    Table1: Index offence and sentence length of absconders unlawfully at large from April 2004 to March 2014, as at 30 September 2014

    OFFENCE

    SENTENCE

    SUPPLYING DRUGS

    3 YRS

    GOING EQUIPPED TO CHEAT

    2YRS

    GOING EQUIPPED TO CHEAT

    2YRS

    POSSESS DRUGS WITH INTENT

    6YRS

    AGGRAVATED BURGLARY

    4YRS 6MTHS

    FALSE INSTRUMENTS

    6MTHS

    BURGLARY

    18MTHS

    DEATH BY RECKLESS DRIVING

    4YRS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    19YRS

    CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT

    3YRS 6MTHS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    9YRS

    THEFT

    8MTHS

    CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

    7YRS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    12YRS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    7YRS

    POSSESS FIREARM WITH INTENT

    78MTHS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    12YRS

    POSSESS OFFENSIVE WEAPON

    23MTHS

    BLACKMAIL

    3YRS

    POSSESS DRUGS WITH INTENT

    3YRS 6MTHS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    10YRS

    CUSTOMS EVASION (DRUGS RELATED)

    7YRS

    FINES

    6MTHS

    DECEPTION

    30MTHS

    IMPORT/EXPORT DRUG

    5YRS

    CUSTOMS EVASION (DRUGS RELATED)

    8YRS

    ASSISTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

    54MTHS

    DECEPTION

    9MTHS

    TRESPASS WITH INTENT

    15MTHS

    CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT

    3YRS

    THEFT

    15MTHS

    CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT

    2YRS

    DECEPTION

    26MTHS

    POSSESS OFFENSIVE WEAPON

    5YRS

    ASSISTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

    6YRS

    DECEPTION

    12MTHS

    CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY DRUGS

    6YRS

    POSSESS DRUGS WITH INTENT

    6YRS

    FALSE INSTRUMENTS

    12MTHS

    MANSLAUGHTER

    5YRS

    THEFT

    Unknown

    CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT DRUGS

    8YRS

    ROBBERY

    LIFE

    FALSE INSTRUMENTS

    18MTHS

    DECEPTION

    30MTHS

    THEFT

    4YRS

    CONTEMPT OF COURT

    15MTHS

    BURGLARY

    6MTHS

    SUPPLYING DRUGS

    42MTHS

    GBH

    2YRS

    FRAUD

    5YRS

    FRAUD

    DETAINEE

    CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY DRUG

    40MTHS

    POSSESS FIREARM WITH INTENT

    LIFE

    BURGLARY

    112DAYS

    POSSESS DRUGS WITH INTENT

    7YRS

    GOING EQUIPPED TO STEAL

    6MTHS

    THEFT

    2YRS

    EXCESS ALCOHOL

    112DAYS

    CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

    6YRS

    ROBBERY

    ISPP

    POSSESS DRUGS WITH INTENT

    3YRS

    ROBBERY

    6Y

    CONPIRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY

    3 YRS 3 MTHS

    POSSESS FIREARM WITH INTENT

    LIFE

    BURGLARY

    3YRS

    ARSON

    ISPP

    RAPE

    LIFE

    ROBBERY

    9YRS

    WOUNDING WITH INTENT

    6YRS 8MTHS

    ROBBERY

    3YRS

    GBH

    8YRS

    ROBBERY

    ISPP

    BURGLARY

    32MTHS

    BURGLARY

    2Y 6MTHS

    POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH INTENT

    ISPP

    CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY

    64MTHS

    Note: Table shows absconds of prisoners and excludes absconds of immigration detainees from NOMS operated establishments and those operated as Immigration Removal Centres by NOMS under contract to the Home Office.

    These figures have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.

  • Chris Bryant – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Chris Bryant – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Bryant on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of extending entitlement to education maintenance allowance to all claimants of universal credit once universal credit has been fully rolled out in Scotland.

    David Mundell

    The Scottish Government is responsible for defining the entitlement criteria for these passported benefits. They will need to consider the current eligibility criteria and make arrangements to ensure that they can continue to deliver these benefits as Universal Credit is introduced.

    There is ongoing engagement between the Scottish Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that any solution is simple, fair, easy to understand and affordable.

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, on what date the discussions between the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office on sanctions against electoral registration officers (EROs) who refuse to conduct door-to-door canvassing as per Standard Three began; when those discussions will conclude; whether the conclusions of those discussions will be made available to (a) hon. Members with EROs who failed Standard Three, (b) the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and (c) councillors within failed local authorities; and if he will place in the Library the conclusions of those discussions.

    Mr Gary Streeter

    The Commission informs me that it has reported on ERO performance against Standard 3 for each year since 2008.

    To support EROs in preparing for and delivering the transition to individual electoral registration (IER) the Commission has developed a new performance standards framework, which it will use to monitor the performance of EROs against throughout the transition to individual electoral registration. The Commission will continue to carefully monitor and work closely with EROs and will consider a range of options to ensure EROs are carrying out their duties in full.

    Discussions between the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office take place regularly on a range of subjects.

    The Commission made clear in its June report that it would use its statutory powers to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to require specific EROs to do door-to-door canvassing if this didn’t happen during the introduction of IER, which began on 10 June in England and Wales.

    No specific date for conclusion has been set as it will depend on the circumstances in each area, but the Commission will continue to keep this under active review. Should the Commission make a recommendation for such a direction, it will write to the relevant honourable members and local council leaders. We will also write to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and ask for this correspondence to be placed in the House Library.

  • Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 16 June 2014, Official Report, column 345W, on employment and support allowance (ESA), how many work programme job outcome payments there were in each ESA prognosis customer group in Great Britain between 1 June 2011 and 31 December 2013.

    Esther McVey

    The information held in respect of job outcomes by Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) prognosis group, is given in the table below:

    Number of Work Programme Job Outcomes by ESA prognosis Customer Groups, Great Britain: 1 June 2011 – 31 December 2013:

    ESA Prognosis Customer Group

    Job Outcomes

    All ESA WRAG

    11,900

    ESA (c) WRAG Mandatory

    810

    ESA (c) WRAG Voluntary

    240

    ESA (IR) WRAG 12Mth Mandatory

    1,060

    ESA (IR) WRAG 12Mth Voluntary

    170

    ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6Mth Stock

    370

    ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6 Mth Mandatory

    7,750

    ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6 Mth Voluntary

    120

    ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6 Mth Mandatory ExIB

    560

    ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6 Mth Voluntary ExIB

    20

    ESA Mandatory (IR) WRAG 12m

    650

    ESA (IR) WRAG 12m Mandatory EXIB

    140

    ESA Credit Only

    40

    ESA (IR) Support Group

    50

    ESA (c) Support Group

    20

    ESA (IR) Support Group ExIB

    10

    ESA (c) Support Group ExIB

    20

    In addition to the 296,000 jobseekers where the Work Programme provider has claimed a Job Outcome payment, there are a further 26,000 people who we have identified, who have spent at least six months in work (or three for the hardest to help), but where the provider has not claimed a Job Outcome.

  • Stewart Jackson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stewart Jackson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Jackson on 2014-06-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to improve skill levels in the construction industry.

    Michael Fallon

    Under the auspices of the Construction Leadership Council, the house building industry is developing an action plan to address three immediate priorities: improving the image of house building; attracting back experienced workers who left during the recession; and attracting other workers with relevant skills.

    More widely, the Government is making a number of reforms to the skills system to improve skills supply; putting employers in the driving seat and making providers more responsive to their needs.

    The Government is also currently undertaking a triennial review of the way the Construction Industry Training Board operates and challenging it on the service it delivers to the sector.

    In addition, the Government believes that a more robust and more visible government construction procurement pipeline is key to improving investment decisions in construction. We are working to enhance the pipeline to give construction businesses the confidence to upskill staff, to recruit, and to commit to apprenticeships.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the potential additional cost to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Appeals Service if a 25 per cent discount on the full price of their parking ticket is given to motorists who lose an appeal against that parking ticket at tribunal.

    Brandon Lewis

    As recommended by the Transport Select Committee (Local authority parking enforcement, HC 118, October 2013), the Government intends to work in partnership with a local authority to assess introducing a 25% discount to motorists who lose an appeal at tribunal level. This trial will allow us to evaluate the impacts, before rolling out the policy nationally.

    The underlying policy rationale is the current lack of any discount at an appeal stage (but with a discount operating if the driver does not appeal) acts as a disincentive for drivers with genuine cases to appeal. I would remind the rt. hon. Member that parking fines are a quasi-judicial process, not a source of revenue for councils. This Government believes in fairness, in contrast to the Labour Government which actively told councils to adopt aggressive parking enforcement practices.