Tag: 2014

  • Jonathan Edwards – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    Jonathan Edwards – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Edwards on 2014-03-12.

    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will meet the Electoral Commission to discuss the suitability of the chief executives of Carmarthenshire County Council and Pembrokeshire County Council for their roles as returning officers at the forthcoming European election.

    Greg Clark

    I have regular meetings with the Chair of the Electoral Commission.

    Cabinet Office officials have been working closely with the Electoral Commission, and have discussed a range of issues, to support the efficient and effective administration of the forthcoming European Parliamentary election.

  • Lord Beecham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Beecham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the National Probation Service budget has been allocated for the management of high-risk cases.

    Lord Faulks

    The total probation budget for 2014-15 is £804 million. This includes the first two months of the financial year, during which services were provided by the probation trusts. As well as operational delivery, the probation budget includes provision of corporate services to support the new operating model.

    The budget figureis based on an initial assessment of operational and business needs and may vary within the financial period. The costs associated with high-risk offenders fall within a number of budget items and do not constitute a separate category.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Steve Rotheram – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Rotheram on 2014-03-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on how many occasions an individual on licence for an attempted murder conviction has been granted permission to enter an exclusion zone which has been formed as part of their licence arrangement in each of the last 10 years.

    Jeremy Wright

    Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions without carrying out a manual search through all relevant individual offender files, at disproportionate cost.

    Conditions such as an exclusion zone may be applied to an offender’s licence where it is necessary to manage the risk that the individual offender poses following release into the community – and where it is proportionate to that risk. Where qualifying victims have exercised their statutory right to make representations about the offender’s licence conditions, the exclusion zone set will take into account those representations. In each case, the supervising officer proposes conditions as appropriate and requests these from the appropriate authority, which applies it to the licence on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the authority is the prison governor; in the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners, or others whose release is on the direction of the Parole Board, the authority is the Parole Board.

    These conditions must be kept under review, and are intended to be flexible to the possible resettlement needs of an offender in the community and any new risks that arise.

    An exclusion zone will rarely be absolute, as it is recognised that there may be exceptional reasons why the offender needs to enter the exclusion zone. Thus, where an exclusion zone is included in the offender’s licence, it will usually be open to the supervising officer to grant the offender permission to enter the exclusion zone, for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.

    As this is a purely localised decision, there is no national record of the number of occasions such permission has been given. It is, therefore, not possible to answer the questions regarding how many times an offender has been granted permission to enter the exclusion zone applied to his licence.

    Data from the last 10 years is not available in the required electronic format to answer the question relating to numbers of offenders with exclusion zones included in their licence. To provide such information would again require a manual interrogation of offenders’ records and this would incur disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the closure of Worcester Walk-In Health Centre onthe emergency department at Worcestershire Royal Hospital.

    Earl Howe

    The reconfiguration of local health services is a matter for the National Health Service. All service changes should be led by clinicians and be in the best interests of patients, not driven from the top down.

    We are aware that the local consultation on the Worcestershire Urgent Care Strategy closed on 9 April 2014. The clinical commissioning groups in Worcestershire are now considering the responses. No decisions have yet been made.

  • 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 2014-03-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which Health and Safety Executive Approved Codes of Practice (a) have been reviewed since May 2010, (b) are scheduled for review or amendment and (c) are not currently scheduled for review.

    Mike Penning

    Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is reviewing all of its Approved Codes of Practices (ACOP) in line with Professor Löfstedt’s independent review of health and safety legislation ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all’ (published November 2011).

    (a) 19 ACOPs have been reviewed since May 2010. Of these, five have been revised and re-published, nine consolidated into three revised ACOPs and five withdrawn completely. These are:

    Revised

    L5 – Control of substances hazardous to health

    L8 – Legionnaires’ disease. The Control of legionella bacteria in water systems

    L24 – Workplace health, safety and welfare

    L117 – Rider-operated lift trucks: Operator training

    L118 – Health and safety at quarries

    Consolidated

    L56 – Safety in the installation and use of gas systems and appliances. This is a consolidation of two ACOPs (L56 and COP20: Standards of training in safe gas installation) into a single revised ACOP (L56)

    L138 – Dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres consolidated the following five ACOPs into a single revised ACOP (L138):

    L134 – Design of plant, equipment and workplace

    L135 – Storage of dangerous substances

    L136 – Control and mitigation measures

    L137 – Safe maintenance, repair and cleaning procedures

    L138 – Dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres

    L143 – Managing and working with Asbestos. This is a consolidation of two ACOPs

    (L127 – The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises and L143 – Work with materials containing asbestos) into a single revised ACOP (L143).

    Withdrawn

    L21 – Management of health and safety at work

    L74 – First aid at work

    L81 – Design, construction and installation of gas service pipes

    L116 – Preventing accidents to children in agriculture

    L130 – Compilation of safety data sheets

    (b) A review of a further 14 ACOPS will be completed by the end of 2014. These are:

    COP25 Safety in docks to be replaced by L148 Safety in docks ACOP

    Five Diving ACOPs:

    L103 – Commercial diving projects offshore

    L104 – Commercial diving projects inland/inshore

    L105 – Recreational diving projects

    L106 – Media diving projects

    L107 – Scientific and archaeological diving projects

    Three Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations linked ACOPs:

    L22 – Safe use of work equipment

    L112 – Safe use of power presses

    L114 – Safe use of woodworking machinery

    L113 – Safe use of lifting equipment

    L101 – Safe work in confined spaces

    L122 – Safety of pressure systems

    L133 – Unloading petrol from road tankers

    L146 – Consulting workers on health and safety

    A further 19 ACOPs associated with changes to legislation and will be reviewed in accordance with the timescale for legislative change.

    (c) All HSE ACOPs are scheduled for review.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why HS2 Ltd, in acknowledging petitions deposited against the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill, requires petitioners to set up an account with a secure email service (the switch data encryption system) in order to receive electronically their Petition Response Document from the Bill’s promoter, the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Baroness Kramer

    Petitioners are not required to set up a new email account to receive their Petition Response Document (PRD) electronically. Ensuring that petitioners receive their PRD in a timely manner is an important part of the petitioning process. The use of the Egress email system ensures that the file size limits imposed by email service providers do not prevent petitioners receiving their PRD. It also avoids the delays and inconvenience that can arise if documents are posted in hard copy, and are delayed or delivery is attempted when the petitioner is not at home. These are issues that people have complained about before, so HS2 Ltd has listened and deployed a better solution. In addition, at the request of the Select Committee, petitioners will be offered alternative means of receiving their PRD other than Egress.

  • Mr Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Mr Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Gregory Campbell on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the change in numbers of civil servants working less than 20 hours per week was between January 2010 and January 2014.

    Nick Hurd

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Lord Moonie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Moonie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Moonie on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many employees of Royal Bank of Scotland earning in excess of £1 million per annum left the group within one year of the Government acquiring a shareholding.

    Lord Deighton

    RBS is a commercial company in which the Government is a shareholder and it is run on a fully commercial basis. RBS retains its own independent board and management team, with responsibility for determining its own strategies and commercial policies. As such, HM Treasury does not hold the requested information relating to staff turnover at the RBS Group.

  • Mr Clive Betts – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electorial Commission

    Mr Clive Betts – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electorial Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Clive Betts on 2014-03-11.

    To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what the electoral registration figures were in each ward in the recent confirmation dry run conducted by Sheffield City Council.

    Gary Streeter

    The Electoral Commission informs me that the confirmation dry run involved matching all entries on the electoral registers against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Customer Information System database. Entries would be marked as green if they matched with DWP, amber if they were a partial match or red if there was no match.

    Results for all wards are available on the Commission’s website here: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0003/163146/Confirmation-dry-run-2013-Results-Wards.xls

    The ward results for Sheffield City Council were as follows:

    Ward

    Green matches

    Amber matches

    Red matches

    Arbourthorne

    82.3%

    1.2%

    16.5%

    Beauchief & Greenhill

    85.6%

    0.9%

    13.5%

    Beighton

    87.2%

    0.7%

    12.1%

    Birley

    87.2%

    1.0%

    11.8%

    Broomhill

    37.5%

    2.8%

    59.7%

    Burngreave

    75.7%

    3.9%

    20.5%

    Central

    34.9%

    3.1%

    62.1%

    Crookes

    65.7%

    0.9%

    33.4%

    Darnall

    77.5%

    3.1%

    19.4%

    Dore & Totley

    86.1%

    1.2%

    12.7%

    East Ecclesfield

    86.2%

    1.0%

    12.7%

    Ecclesall

    81.8%

    1.2%

    17.0%

    Firth Park

    82.6%

    1.8%

    15.7%

    Fulwood

    62.8%

    1.3%

    35.9%

    Gleadless Valley

    79.3%

    1.7%

    19.0%

    Graves Park

    82.9%

    1.1%

    16.0%

    Hillsborough

    81.7%

    1.4%

    17.0%

    Manor Castle

    76.5%

    1.5%

    22.0%

    Mosborough

    85.6%

    0.9%

    13.4%

    Nether Edge

    69.4%

    2.7%

    27.9%

    Richmond

    86.1%

    1.1%

    12.8%

    Shiregreen & Brightside

    82.9%

    1.4%

    15.6%

    Southey

    84.8%

    1.1%

    14.1%

    Stannington

    84.9%

    1.8%

    13.3%

    Stocksbridge & Upper Don

    85.2%

    1.8%

    13.0%

    Walkley

    69.5%

    1.7%

    28.8%

    West Ecclesfield

    87.9%

    0.8%

    11.3%

    Woodhouse

    86.1%

    1.3%

    12.6%

    “

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his policy is on the redevelopment of Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    HM Courts & Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it meets operational requirements.