Tag: 2016

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the European Court of Human Rights ruling on 12 January in Barbulescu v Romania on an employer’s right to access an employee’s private emails in the UK.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has made no assessment of the judgment The case raises the important question of whether the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his communications would not be monitored; and could reasonably expect privacy when communicating from the Yahoo Messenger account that he had registered at his employer’s request, and where there was a strict company policy prohibiting use of work systems for personal purposes. The Applicant alleged interference with his article 8 rights and that the interference was not foreseeable or proportionate. But the Court held that there was nothing to indicate that the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and his employer’s interests, and that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

    The attached ICO’s employment practices code sets out guidance in relation to workplace monitoring. The code is already clear that employers should have policies in place explaining how they expect their IT systems to be used, including setting out the extent to which, if any, the IT system can be used for personal use. Even where no such policy is in place, it is reasonable in certain circumstances for employers to monitor an employee’s use of the IT systems to ensure compliance with any policy or to ensure that employees are not abusing the use of the system. Such monitoring may include accessing non-work communications but this should only be done in exceptional circumstances.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Rotheram on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidelines her Department produces on the inclusion of non-conviction information or soft information on DBS forms.

    Karen Bradley

    Statutory guidance is issued under section 113B(4A) of the Police Act 1997 in order to assist chief officers of police in making decisions to provide relevant non-conviction information and other intelligence from local police records for inclusion in enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service certificates. The Home Office introduced the first edition of this guidance on 10 September 2012 and the most recent revision came into force on 10 August 2015.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-03-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has had discussions with police and crime commissioners on the relative allocation of resources for public order and security to urban and surburban areas.

    Mike Penning

    The allocation of resources is a matter for Police and Crime Commissioners, in consultation with their respective Chief Constables. Overall police spending is protected in real terms over the next Spending Review period, once local precept is taken into account. There is no question that the police have the resources to do their important work.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-04-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to the Israeli authorities on the planned demolition of the Palestinian settlements of Susiya and Umm al-Hiran.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The British Embassy in Tel Aviv raises concerns with the Israeli Government on the issue of demolitions. Demolitions of Palestinian villages not only inflict unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians, but are harmful to the peace process, and in all by the most exceptional of cases, are contrary to International Humanitarian Law. In regards to demolitions of Bedouin villages in green-line Israel such as Umm al-Hiran, a solution must respect the equality of all Israel’s citizens, and be consistent with Israel’s commitments under international law.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information his Department holds on the number of house demolitions conducted by Israel in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We do not hold independent information on the number of house demolitions conducted by the Israeli authorities in the last five years. However, according to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2011 and 2015, 2851 Palestinian-owned structures were demolished in Area C and East Jerusalem. This figure includes homes, infrastructure and agriculture-related structures. The breakdown is 2011: 560 Palestinian-owned structured demolished (all in West Bank); 2012: 604 (540 in West Bank and 64 in East Jerusalem); 2013: 663 (565 in West Bank and 98 in East Jerusalem); 2014: 493 (98 in East Jerusalem and 395 in West Bank); and 2015: 531 (453 in the West Bank and 78 in East Jerusalem).

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Oates on 2016-07-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 14 July (HL1014), whether it is the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to refer to all ministers of foreign countries without using their title or forename, as with Zimbabwe’s Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa; and if so, when that became their policy.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have amended the record so that it provides Zimbabwean Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s full title.

  • Steve Double – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Steve Double – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Double on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the likely effect on Category M of the Drug Tariff of the proposed changes to the pharmacy funding formula.

    David Mowat

    We do not expect that our proposals to reduce funding, in respect to community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond, will have any effect on Category M or the medicine margin as we propose to achieve them through changes to pharmacy contractors’ fees and allowances.

  • Baroness Hodgson of Abinger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Hodgson of Abinger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hodgson of Abinger on 2015-12-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the percentage of the funds pledged by all nations through the 2013 Somali Compact that has been spent.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Somalia’s Aid Coordination Unit (ACU), supported by the World Bank and UN Development Programme, has reported that donors are meeting and sometimes exceeding their pledges. The 2013 pledge to implement the New Deal was 2.4 billion US dollars. ACU estimate that donors spent 3.2 billion US dollars across 2014 and 2015, exceeding the pledge by 33 per cent. According to ACU, donors have consistently delivered 1 billion US dollars annually in Overseas Development Assistance, accompanied by significant resources for peacekeeping and military aid.

  • Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of safety and welfare in immigrant detention centres in the UK.

    Lord Bates

    The regulation of safety arrangements in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) is through the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the Operating Standards for IRCs, Detention Services Orders relating to security arrangements and the relevant sections of the contracts and service level agreements relating to security. Each IRC has a Home Office Immigration Enforcement Manager to monitor ongoing service provision.

    Independent scrutiny is an important part of assurance that our removal centres are safe, secure and humane. Assessments of IRCs and holding rooms are published by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) and in the annual reports of Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB).

    Home Office service improvement plans contribute to delivering continuing improvement of services in response to independent recommendations. Service improvement plans in response to HMCIP inspection reports have been publicly available on the HMCIP website for all reports published after 1 April 2015.

    On 9 February 2015 my Right Honourable Friend, the Home Secretary, announced an independent review of the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons by Stephen Shaw, which included consideration of the conditions at IRCs and airport holding rooms. The Government’s position on the review was set out in the Written Ministerial Statement laid on 14 January 2016.

    Current policy is clear that a number of groups of individuals, including pregnant women, the elderly, victims of torture and the mentally ill, should be detained only in very exceptional circumstances. The Government accepts Stephen Shaw’s recommendations that there should be a wider definition of those at risk, and will introduce a new “adult at risk” concept into decision-making on immigration detention, with a clear presumption that people who are at risk should not be detained, building on the existing legal framework.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans her Department has for the future of its Fire Kills campaign.

    Mike Penning

    The evaluation of the recent Fire Kills Unsung Heroes campaign is currently underway and the results will be analysed and fed into future campaign development. The Fire Kills campaign is included in plans for 2016/17 subject to appropriate approvals from the Secretary of State.