Tag: Greg Mulholland

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there are processes in place to ensure that people not suspected of criminal offences can request deletion of data recovered by CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

Mike Penning

I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of aircraft being targeted by laser pens.

Mr Robert Goodwill

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), as independent aviation safety regulator, is co-ordinating an industry-wide initiative to decide what further measures are needed to reduce the risk of an accident from laser pens. As part of this process, the CAA is working with a wide range of key stakeholders including relevant Government Departments, emergency services, air traffic control, airports, and airlines. The CAA has also published a Safety Notice providing guidance on the action that aircraft crew and air traffic controllers should take during and after an incident.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of times a removal direction was issued for people applying to remain in the UK while they were awaiting a court hearing in each of the last five years.

James Brokenshire

The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

However, more generally, under section 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, a person may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom whilst an in-country appeal is pending, although this does not prevent the giving of a direction for the person’s removal, the making of a deportation order, or the taking of any other interim or preparatory action.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reasons the proposal from High Speed UK on high speed rail has been rejected.

Mr Robert Goodwill

The proposals suggested by High Speed UK are similar to the Reverse ‘E’ considered by HS2 Ltd in their 2010 report submitted to the Government on the demand and business case analysis of the alternative proposals. It was considered that this proposal could not offer better journey times from London/Birmingham to Manchester/Liverpool than HS2 trains continuing to the north-west from Lichfield via the West Coast Main Line. Ministers considered the advice presented and views from a wide range of sources, and based on the evidence the decision was taken to proceed with the ‘Y’ shaped network.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what access foreign security services have in the UK to CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

Mike Penning

I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure whistleblowers and hon. Members can communicate with each other without their communications being intercepted.

Mr John Hayes

The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when he expects to begin the Government’s consultation on a statutory pubs code.

Anna Soubry

The Pubs Code and Adjudicator consultation will be published imminently.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the number of driver registration plate numbers the DVLA has sold to car parking companies in each of the last five years.

Andrew Jones

The table below shows the income received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) from processing requests for information from private parking management companies over the last five financial years. The DVLA sets fees to recover the cost of processing requests and does not make a profit from providing this information.

Year	Total Revenue
2010/11	£2,910,850
2011/12	£3,657,859
2012/13	£4,831,355
2013/14	£6,097,898
2014/15	£7,573,298

The DVLA releases vehicle keeper information to those who can show reasonable cause for receiving it. The following table shows the number of requests from private car parking management companies for vehicle keeper information processed via electronic links over the last five financial years.

Year	Electronic Requests
2010/11	1,178,034
2011/12	1,574,397
2012/13	1,897,572
2013/14	2,430,130
2014/15	3,083,276

The vast majority of requests for vehicle keeper information are made electronically but information can also be requested using a paper application form. However, these requests come from a range of customers including private car parking management companies and the figures are not broken down by customer type.

The DVLA meets regularly with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to discuss a range of issues, including the provision of information for private parking management. The ICO’s most recent audit resulted in a high assurance rating relating to the release of information from the DVLA’s vehicle record.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to improve staff retention in NHS England.

George Freeman

NHS England ran a restructuring programme in 2014/15. Since then, the organisation turnover rate has declined and for the last three months has been on average 3.75%.

Retention issues tend to arise in particular roles or professions, for example finance, or in specific locations. NHS England has mechanisms to address the specific issues. Furthermore, NHS England conducts exit interviews with staff who leave to help understand issues which affect retention and ensure they can be addressed.

In order to ensure NHS England can attract and retain high quality staff, and plan and manage natural succession, it has introduced a formal talent management process to ensure that line managers are discussing current performance, future potential, personal development plans and career aspirations with staff. This process has covered over 1,000 staff in senior and business critical roles. The organisation and senior leadership now have a much better understanding of people’s aspirations, development needs and career intentions.

The organisation has also introduced a staff recognition scheme, and other programmes of work to improve health and well-being, capability development, staff engagement and diversity with the aim of making NHS England an employer of choice for talented people.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many Individual Funding Requests have been granted in each of the last 10 years.

George Freeman

Prior to 1 April 2013, individual funding requests (IFRs) were the responsibility of local primary care trusts and information was not collected centrally.

NHS England holds information relating to IFRs made in relation to the prescribed services it has commissioning responsibility for. This data is available from April 2013 when the organisation was formally established. NHS England does not hold information relating to IFRs submitted to clinical commissioning groups.

From April 2013 to September 2015, NHS England approved 978 IFRs. All IFR requests are considered in-line with NHS England associated policies which can be found on its website and accessed via the following link:

www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/policies/gp/

“