UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Lord Ouseley

  • Lord Ouseley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Ouseley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2015-10-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that workers in the United Kingdom currently earning below the minimum wage receive the minimum wage.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    HMRC enforces the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and responds to every complaint it receives. It also conducts programmes of targeted enforcement in sectors of the economy which have a high risk of non-compliance with the NMW. The Government increased HMRC’s budget for enforcing the NMW by £4m for 2015/16 to £13.2m.

    The Government announced in September an increase in HMRC’s enforcement funding for 2016/17, following the introduction of the National Living Wage in April 2016. The Government also announced a package of measures to strengthen NMW enforcement: increasing penalties from 100% to 200% of the arrears that employers owe; the setting up of a dedicated team in HMRC focused on tackling the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance; and the creation of a statutory Director of Labour Market Enforcement and Exploitation.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-03-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action has been taken against those responsible for the abandoned case involving eight South Wales police officers charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the 1988 Lynette White murder inquiry.

    Lord Taylor of Holbeach

    This case is the subject of civil litigation. HM Government is, therefore, unable to comment at the present time.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-03-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration has been given to local authorities and their partners having more responsibilities and commensurate finance to work with local employers to tackle unemployment and underemployment of young people.

    Lord Freud

    Through the City Deals, the Government has invited Local Authorities to develop proposals to tackle unemployment and worklessness in their areas. Several of these proposals have entailed working closely with local employers to enhance employment opportunities for young people, for example, Greater Manchester have developed a local employer-led jobs campaign to co-ordinate and simplify local and national employment schemes so that business can access young talent easily.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-03-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action is proposed to meet any shortfall in primary and secondary school places in some localities over the next five years, as predicted by the Local Government Association’s analysis of the Department for Education’s figures.

    Lord Nash

    In December 2013 the Department for Education announced an additional £2.35 billion in basic need funding to support local authorities to create the additional places that will be needed by September 2017, in addition to the £5 billion already committed for the period 2011-15. We have also allocated £820 million in targeted basic need funding to fund an additional 74,000 high-quality places in the areas that face the most demand.

    The Department allocates funding for new school places based on information provided by local authorities through an annual survey of the current capacity of schools in the area, and forecasts of future pupil numbers.

    Local authorities are legally responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient school places. The Local Government Association’s report shows how effective many local authorities have been in creating new places and the Department will continue to support local authorities in doing this.

    One of the recommendations of the Local Government Association’s report was for longer-term allocations. The Department wants to give local authorities as long as possible to plan their school places. This should not extend beyond a period where we have confidence in the underlying data and should allow the Department to allocate funding to reflect changes in projected population and in the number of places needed. The Department believes that three-year rolling allocations strike the right balance between these two objectives.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-06-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the creation of a bespoke training package by the Independent Advisory Panel on Non-Compliance Managementfor use in deportation removalprocesses; and when will it be available.

    Lord Taylor of Holbeach

    The Independent Advisory Panel on Non-Compliance Management (IAPNCM) was established to provide support to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in the design of the new training package for use by Detainee Custody Officers who escort individuals being removed from the United Kingdom. They also provide independent advice to Home Office Immigration Enforcement on the quality and safety of the new package, and in particular on the use of force techniques.

    The panel has completed its work and the new training package and implementation are being finalised.

  • Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many football banning orders have been issued in each of the past of the five years for football supporters found guilty of racially or religiously aggravated public order offences.

    Lord Taylor of Holbeach

    A football banning order is a preventative measure which is not issued as part of a sentence, or solely on the basis of an individual’s conviction offence. For the purpose of deciding whether to make a banning order, a court may consider a range of prosecution evidence in support of a banning order application.

    The Football Banning Orders Authority holds a range of data on extant football banning orders, including in some cases the relevant offences which initiated a banning order application. However, this is secondary to details of the banning order itself, and it is not possible in all cases to identify which banned individuals have been convicted of a racially or religiously aggravated public order offence. To do so would require a manual exercise to review individual files which would incur a disproportionate cost.

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

    Lord Ouseley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy and effectiveness of sentencing in cases where football fans have been found guilty of racially or religiously aggravated public order offences; and whether they will consider providing advice to the magistracy in response to any evidence revealing that magistrates are reluctant to issue football banning orders in such cases.

    Lord Faulks

    Racially and religiously aggravated offences have no place in our society. Parliament has provided the courts with the necessary powers to deal effectively with those who are convicted of these serious offences. The court must make a football banning order where an offender has been convicted of a relevant offence and it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help prevent violence or disorder at, or in connection with, any regulated football matches. If the court is not so satisfied, it must state that fact and give reasons in open court. The prosecution has a right of appeal against a failure by the court to make a banning order.

    Relevant offences for these purposes include chanting of an indecent or racialist nature at a designated football match, and specified offences under the Public Order Act 1986 committed during a period relevant to a football match, which covers the period beginning two hours before the match and ending one hour after the match, at any premises while the offender was at, or entering or leaving or trying to enter or leave, the premises.

    We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the magistracy are reluctant to make football banning orders, and decisions of the magistrates are made with the assistance of legal advisers who refer to current sentencing guidelines.