Tag: Lord McColl of Dulwich

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-01-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been (1) arrested, (2) charged, and (3) convicted, under section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in each year since the provision came into force, and what penalty was imposed in cases of conviction.

Lord Faulks

The attached table shows, for the years 2010-2014, the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and the number of offenders found guilty and sentenced at all courts, with sentencing outcomes, for offences relating to paying or promising to pay a person to provide sexual services, where that person is subject to exploitative conduct to induce or encourage them to provide those services.

Court proceeding data for calendar year 2015 is planned for publication in May 2016.

The Home Office collects data on arrests at offence group level (for example, “sexual offences”), but the data is unavailable in relation to more specific offences, such as those under section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 29 June 2015 (HL541), what action they have taken to make it easier for human trafficking victims whose circumstances make it difficult to provide evidence that they have been habitually resident in the UK for three months to provide such evidence.

Lord Bates

A significant number of victims of modern slavery who are identified in the UK are provided support through the government funded victim-care contract for 90 days or longer. Where this is the case, we have ensured that the support provider is able to supply the Department for Work and Pensions with a letter as evidence that the individual has been habitually resident in the UK for more than three months. For the remaining cases where they receive support for less than 90 days, evidence may be provided by the police or other statutory agencies involved in the case confirming the victim has been living in the UK for more than three months, where such evidence exists.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many EEA nationals with ongoing applications for discretionary leave to remain as victims of human trafficking have been issued with minded to remove” letters or administrative removal papers since 1 January 2014.”

Lord Bates

Since 01 January 2014, no EEA Nationals with ongoing applications for Discretionary Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom as victims of human trafficking have been served with ‘minded to remove’ letters or administrative removal papers whilst their applications were being considered.

In the same time period,fewer than five applicants were served with papers before they made an application for Discretionary Leave to Remain.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what processes are in place, and what action they have taken, to ensure that EEA nationals who have made applications for discretionary leave to remain (DLR) as confirmed victims of human trafficking are not considered for administrative removal until a decision has been made about their application for DLR.

Lord Bates

The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance regarding the rights and treatment of victims of human trafficking has been issued to Home Office staff responsible for making decisions about the administrative removal of EEA nationals, and what specific guidance has been given to caseworkers about the criteria for determining whether or not the administrative removal of a confirmed victim of human trafficking who is an EEA national is proportionate.

Lord Bates

The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 9 February (HL4411), how the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 make provision for the follow-up studies to investigate how mutations vary in each of the different cells of the resulting children; at what age or ages the children would be when their cells would be examined in that way; how many different tissues and of which type would have to be biopsied to obtain the cells of interest; how informed consent would be obtained from the children for that purpose; and at what point such children would be informed of the techniques used in their conception.

Earl Howe

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will not come into force until 29 October 2015. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will consider how best to apply a monitoring framework to clinics awarded a licence to carry out mitochondrial donation treatment, against which it would inspect.

The HFEA will announce its proposals for the regulation and monitoring of mitochondrial donation treatment cycles following the approval of regulations by Parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 November 2014 (HL2644) and on 26 January 2015 (HL4063 and HL4228), whether they will place in the Library of the House a full copy of the correspondence between either the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) or members of the HFEA’s Expert Panel and the Chinese authorities, in which the reasons for banning pronuclear transfer in China following publication of the abstract in Fertility and Sterility in 2003 (Volume 30, supplement 3, p56) were explained in detail.

Earl Howe

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that neither the Authority nor the members of Expert Panel it convened have had any correspondence with the “Chinese authorities” on this matter.

With regard to correspondence between the expert panel, the HFEA and the authors of the Zhang researchers, I refer my noble friend to my previous Written Answer of 26 January on the matter highlighting that the Expert Panel is independent of the HFEA and does not act on its behalf.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the latest research shared on a confidential basis with the Expert Panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) indicates that the first embryo generated following either spindle-chromosomal complex transfer or pronuclear transfer could be implanted into a woman later this year with the first baby born in 2016, as reported in The Independent on 30 January and by BBC News online on 1 February.

Earl Howe

At this time, any suggestion of a date when the first mitochondrial donation treatment cycle might take place or when the first child resulting from the use of the donation techniques might be born is speculation.

The Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will come into force on 29 October 2015. Clinics wishing to offer mitochondrial donation in treatment after that date, will first need to apply to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for authorisation to do so; this would need to be granted before such treatment could take place.