UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Diana Johnson

  • Diana Johnson – 2022 Question on Legality of Holding Asylum Seekers for Over 24 Hours

    Diana Johnson – 2022 Question on Legality of Holding Asylum Seekers for Over 24 Hours

    The question asked by Diana Johnson, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull North, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this urgent question. Tomorrow, the Home Affairs Committee will visit Manston on its second visit, as we first visited in June. Alongside looking at the overcrowding, the safety issues and the lack of basic facilities, there is a concern about the legality of the Home Secretary’s actions in authorising individuals to be detained at Manston for more than 24 hours. Weekend media reports suggested that she was repeatedly provided with the advice that detaining individuals at Manston for more than 24 hours was illegal. The Sunday Times reported that she had received papers on 4 October stating that the Home Office had no power to detain people solely for welfare reasons or for arranging onward accommodation. Can the Minister explain to the House the legal basis for detaining individuals at Manston for longer than 24 hours?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who chairs the Select Committee, for that question. The law is clear that we should not detain individuals at sites such as Manston for longer than 24 hours, and that is exactly the position that we want to return to as fast as we can.

    There are competing legal duties on Ministers. Another legal duty that we need to pay heed to is our duty not to leave individuals destitute. It would be wrong for the Home Office to allow individuals who had only recently arrived in the United Kingdom—the vast majority of those at Manston had been saved at sea by Border Force, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the Royal Navy—and who had been brought to the site in a condition of some destitution, to be released on to the rural lanes of Kent without great care. That is why the Home Secretary has balanced her duties and taken the required steps to procure more hotel accommodation as swiftly as we can. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) can see the work that we have already done.

    In answer to the first part of the right hon. Lady’s question, the conditions at Manston were poor because there were too many people there, but a wide range of facilities are provided: individuals are clothed, they are fed three times a day, and there is an excellent medical facility. I have seen those things with my own eyes, and I hope that she sees them as well. We need to keep a sense of proportion about the state of Manston.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-10-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) slavery and trafficking prevention orders and (b) slavery and trafficking risk orders have been (i) applied for and (ii) granted since the coming into force of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

    Karen Bradley

    Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders (STPO) and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders (STRO) under the Modern Slavery Act were commenced on 31 July 2015. The police, NCA and Home Office Immigration Enforcement may apply to a Magistrates Court for both types of order. Courts may make a STPO when sentencing an individual for a slavery or human trafficking offence. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service provides quarterly statistics on applications for all types of orders and information has been published for the period up to June 2015. Information on applications for STPOs and STROs since 31 July 2015 will be published in the next issue of data covering the period July – September 2015.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to ensure that staff employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service in the collection of court fines will have their employment transferred to the new provider of this service.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 15 October 2015, following re-consideration of the department’s requirements, we have decided that outsourcing these services to a single supplier is not the best option for HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Therefore the department has withdrawn the procurement for an external provider.

    Compliance and enforcement staff currently employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service will not be transferred to an external provider.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to announce the outcome of the tendering process for the privatisation of the HM Courts and Tribunals Service fines collection service.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 15 October 2015, following re-consideration of the department’s requirements, we have decided that outsourcing these services to a single supplier is not the best option for HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Therefore the department has withdrawn the procurement for an external provider.

    Compliance and enforcement staff currently employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service will not be transferred to an external provider.

  • Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many times the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service has made payments of protective awards due to failures on the part of the company or administrator to conduct a proper collective consultation in each of the last five years; to which companies such awards were made; and how much was paid out in (a) statutory entitlements and (b) protective awards in each such case.

    Jenny Willott

    The Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service (RPS) only makes protective award payments to employees if their employer is insolvent and an employment tribunal has determined that there was insufficient consultation, by the company, administrator or liquidator, regarding redundancies and makes a protective award.

    In the last five financial years, the RPS has paid out the following in statutory payments for cases where a protective award was awarded:

    · 2009-2010 £87,209,871.62

    · 2010-2011 £82,604,201.50

    · 2011-2012 £68,181,382.07

    · 2012-2013 £57,267,407.27

    · 2013-2014 £7,937,522.34

    The protective award payments made on these cases (in addition to the statutory payments) were as following:

    • 2009-2010 £28,808,241.65
    • 2010-2011 £30,997,901.63
    • 2011-2012 £23,437,557.92
    • 2012-2013 £29,290,224.74
    • 2013-2014 £16,581,330.05

    These figures include cases in administration and those in liquidation

    A breakdown of the individual cases is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many times the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service has made payments in cases where Deloitte was appointed the administrator in each of the last five years; how many such cases also involved payments made for protective awards; and how much was paid out for (a) statutory entitlements and (b) protective awards in each such case.

    Jo Swinson

    In the last five years, the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Services have paid £77,233,534.54 in statutory entitlements, in 173 cases where Deloitte was appointed the administrator or liquidator.

    Of these cases, 20 cases resulted in protective award judgments totalling £6,930,864.72 paid from the National Insurance Fund.

    Due to the number of cases, it is not possible to disclose how much was paid in each individual case so a total has been provided instead.

  • Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many times his Department has appeared at an employment tribunal to contest protective awards in each of the last five years.

    Jo Swinson

    The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has not appeared before an employment tribunal to contest a protective award.

    Protective awards are determined by Employment Tribunals following applications made by former employees or their representatives.

    BIS is sometimes joined as a respondent in protective award claims, because under legislation, the Secretary of State guarantees the payment of protective awards made in favour of employees whose employer is insolvent, up to a certain amount.

    It is for the Tribunal to establish the facts in each case, considering evidence of the actions taken by employers and their representatives, and decide whether there was adequate consultation on redundancies BIS is not in a position to know the extent to which an employer or their representative consulted with employees and does not give evidence on that point nor take any particular position.

    BIS’ responsibility is to establish what payments are due and who is entitled to receive them. We therefore make written representations to the tribunal on points of law or to seek clarification of who is covered by a protective award. We may appeal an award, but only if we consider that the tribunal has made the judgment based on an incorrect reading of the legislation.

    The number of cases where BIS has made representations to an employment tribunal regarding protective award cases in the last 5 years is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Diana Johnson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many outstanding protective awards to be paid by the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Services are owed to firms in which less than 20 people are employed on one site.

    Jenny Willott

    Under legislation, a protective award can be made where it is determined that there was insufficient consultation in situations involving 20 or more redundancies in one establishment. The Redundancy Payments Service makes payments, to affected employees, where an employment tribunal has made an award and the employer is insolvent.

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in the Woolworths case (USDAW v WW Realisations 1 Ltd and others), decided that it should remove the European test of ‘establishment’ from UK law. The Department is appealing this judgment as we do not agree with this interpretation of the law.

    We think the right interpretation of the law is that employers must consult employee representatives if making 20 or more redundancies at one establishment. In a dispute, it is for the employment tribunals to decide what is an establishment on the facts of each individual case.

    Until the Woolworths appeal is determined, employment tribunals are staying (not deciding) claims from employees who worked on sites with fewer than 20 proposed redundancies and the RPS is unable to make payments to such employees.

    Information on the number of affected cases is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-02-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to provide additional support for girls with autism.

    Norman Lamb

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on autism recommends a multi-disciplinary diagnostic pathway, involving different professionals according to the child’s presentation, and it highlights that girls are an at-risk group for under-diagnosis.

    Responsibility sits with clinical commissioning groups to ensure that diagnostic services are commissioned in their area in accordance with the NICE guidance.

  • Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Diana Johnson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-02-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient numbers of clinicians capable of diagnosing and treating autism are being trained in (a) Hull and (b) England.

    Norman Lamb

    It is the responsibility of local employers to ensure that they have the right numbers of staff, with the right skills available to provide a high quality service to their patients. Locally there should be specialist training for those in roles that have a direct impact on and make decisions about people with autism.

    This will be re-enforced in new statutory guidance on autism for local authorities and the National Health Service which is to be issued shortly. In addition clinical staff such as psychiatrists and clinical psychologists should be undertaking their own clinical professional development. In support of this Health Education England will provide support in raising awareness of autism. In Hull, the clinical commissioning group is working with local providers, particularly Humber NHS Foundation Trust, to recruit additional staff for its Autism Diagnosis Team.