Tag: Kate Hoey

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-07-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many of the existing franchise agreements between his Department and train operating companies contain punctuality targets for timetabled passenger services; what the target is in each case; and what the penalties are for missing such a target.

Claire Perry

6 existing franchise agreements contain punctuality targets for timetabled passenger services.

The targets are in the franchise agreements, which are published online by the Department for Transport at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-register-of-rail-passenger-franchise-agreements. The associated contractual payments are commercially confidential.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-07-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many train operating companies (TOCs) missed their annual punctuality targets in each year of Control Period 4, 2009-14; and whether the Office of Rail Regulation can impose fines on TOCs for missing punctuality targets for timetabled train services.

Claire Perry

The regulatory targets for punctuality set by the Office of Rail Regulation for Control Period 4 applied to Network Rail, but not to the individual TOCs. ORR holds Network Rail accountable for its delivery to TOCs by enforcing targets agreed between Network Rail and TOCs.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether all people who received a Royal Prerogative of Mercy had their names listed in the London Gazette.

Damian Green

There are no statutory requirements relating to the publication of pardons granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. However, by convention, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery places a notice of such pardons granted in England and Wales in the London Gazette.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, in what circumstances the information pertaining to grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 was lost; and what steps she plans to take to recover that information.

Mrs Theresa Villiers

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

· to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, when she first became aware that records on grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 had been lost.

Mrs Theresa Villiers

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

· to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, if she will publish the names of those people who received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; and when and for what reasons it was granted to each.

Mrs Theresa Villiers

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

· to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

· to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-06-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on how many occasions the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been granted in relation to offences occurring as a result and in the course of escaping from or breaking out of prison in the last 25 years; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Wright

We do not centrally hold data on the number of occasions the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been exercised for the time period in question. Consequently, the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, as it would involve a manual trawl through the records of every prisoner who has formed part of the prison population for the last 25 years, to identify, firstly, if they have ever escaped from prison custody and secondly, if a request to exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy was successful.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-06-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who the beneficiaries in Northern Ireland of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy granted by means of a Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual were in the last 25 years; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs Theresa Villiers

As the hon Member is aware, the assessment of my Department is that to release the names of individuals granted the RPM years ago would not be appropriate, given the time that has passed since the RPM was last used and the potential legal issues this would raise. There are, of course, means by which names of RPM recipients become public, including in the course of legal proceedings, which is a matter for the courts.