UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Lord Blencathra

  • Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 16 September (HL2100), whether they plan to remove the National Health Service ban on treating injured British military personnel who have undergone some private medical treatment, however small, for their injuries.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Any National Health Service patient is free to choose to fund privately a healthcare procedure, but as a result will generally be required to pay costs associated with that procedure. Whether the NHS provides on-going care is addressed on a case by case basis. Given the circumstances relating to a small number of very seriously injured veterans, NHS England is ensuring that they continue to receive on-going care. The NHS works closely with the Ministry of Defence to support injured service personnel through the transition process when they are discharged from the Armed Forces.

    We do not plan to exempt serving personnel or veterans from the principles of the NHS, but will ensure that all the circumstances of individual cases are taken into account when making decisions on the care of serving personnel and veterans.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to set out the steps and timescale by which the refugees currently in Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Germany would have the unfettered right to move to the United Kingdom.

    Lord Bates

    The United Kingdom does not participate in the border aspects of the Schengen acquis and continues to operate border controls with other EU Member States. Individuals granted refugee status in another Member State will therefore be subject to the same entry clearance requirements as third country visa nationals resident in the EU if they wish to enter the United Kingdom. Free movement rights can only be obtained once a refugee becomes a citizen of an EU country. This process varies from Member State to Member State.

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

    Lord Blencathra – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2014-03-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been paid in legal aid fees over the last five years to law firms Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day to conduct cases alleging abuse by British soldiers.

    Lord Faulks

    The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) cannot separately identify legal aid cases for those Iraqis alleging abuse by British Soldiers without disproportionate costs. Legal aid cases are not systematically recorded against nationality or cause of action.

    Leigh Day have not acted under legal aid in these types of cases. Public Interest Lawyers have acted for Iraqi clients under legal aid in cases seeking investigations into deaths and mistreatment.

    The net payments to Public Interest Lawyers over the past five years were:

    Year

    Amount

    2008/09

    £628,527.75

    2009/10

    £267,433.88

    2010/11

    £439,268.02

    2011/12

    £331,238.85

    2012/13

    £54,387.48

    These payments cover all work undertaken by the firm under legal aid. The payments made will be offset by recoupment on successful cases where the opponent has paid the costs.

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

    Lord Blencathra – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2014-03-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take steps to recover legal aid payments to the firm Public Interest Lawyers following their statement on 20 March that there was no evidence that British soldiers had murdered 20 Iraqis.

    Lord Faulks

    Legal aid is not funding the Al-Sweady Inquiry. There are therefore no plans to recover payments made from legal aid to Public Interest Lawyers following their statement on 20 March.

    On 20 March, at the Al-Sweady Inquiry into the most serious allegations against British soldiers in the Iraq War, lawyers representing Iraqi families withdrew their claim that the troops had killed unarmed civilians they had captured and brought back to an army base.

    The inquiry continues and the statement on 20 March does not mean that the inquiry has been abandoned.

    Legal aid was provided for an action prior to the Inquiry. Legal aid was provided to Iraqi applicants to seek an independent and effective investigation into deaths and torture or inhumane and degrading treatment in relation to the incident at checkpoint Danny Boy in Iraq in May 2004. As a result of these proceedings, the Secretary of State for Defence decided to hold the Al-Sweady Inquiry. This action was therefore successful in its aim.

    The Inquiry is not yet complete and the Chairman’s report is not due to be published until later in the year. Public Interest Lawyers’s statement refers to part only of the allegations made and the Ministry of Justice awaits the Inquiry Report before commenting further.

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

    Lord Blencathra – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2014-03-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to investigate United Kingdom law firms pursuing claims of unfounded abuse by British soldiers.

    Lord Faulks

    There are no plans to investigate the firms as they are not funded under the legal aid regulations or their contract with the Lord Chancellor in the Al-Sweady inquiry. It would not be reasonable to investigate the firms under their contract in relation to a matter arising outside their contract.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Lord Blencathra – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2014-03-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will instruct the Crown Prosecution Service to bring prosecutions relating to all cases of female genital mutilation reported in London since 2009.

    Lord Wallace of Tankerness

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to tackling cases of female genital mutilation (FGM), however it can only prosecute cases referred to it by the police which meet both of the tests outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

    The Code sets out a two stage test which must be applied when deciding whether a case should be prosecuted. The first stage is the evidential test which requires prosecutors to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If the evidential stage of the test is met prosecutors must then go on to identify the relevant public interest factors tending for and against the prosecution in order to form an overall assessment of whether a prosecution is in the public interest.