Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    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.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lisa Nandy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lisa Nandy on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many staff who were suspended remained on his Department’s payroll in (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14; and on what date the official suspension commenced in each such case.

    Mr Francis Maude

    In line with the practice of previous Administrations exact numbers are not usually disclosed to protect individual privacy when numbers are five or fewer.

    No staff in my department were suspended and remained on payroll in 2012-13.

    Five or fewer civil servants in my department were suspended on full pay in the year 2013-14.

  • The Lord Bishop of St Albans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The Lord Bishop of St Albans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans on 2014-05-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will act to reduce the unit price paid by those consumers who are able to purchase electricity only from a supplier because they are not on mains gas supply and so cannot benefit from a dual fuel tariff.

    Baroness Verma

    The decision to offer a dual fuel discount to customers who take a gas and electricity supply from one supplier is a commercial matter for the companies concerned. The discount reflects savings made by the company by combining administrative costs of providing the two separate supplies. Dual fuel discounts typically range from £10 to £25 per year. It would not be appropriate for Government to intervene by requiring suppliers to reduce electricity prices for just one specific segment of customers.

  • Lord Bassam of Brighton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Bassam of Brighton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 2014-05-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many neurofibromatosis sufferers they estimate to be in the United Kingdom, broken down by (1) county, and (2) type.

    Earl Howe

    NHS England commissions neurofibromatosis type two (NF2) services and complex neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) services as part of its remit to deliver specialised services.

    NHS England has published service specifications for both types of neurofibromatosis. These estimate that in England there are 11,267 individuals with NF1 and 862 with NF2.

    The Department does not have specific guidance relating to the special travel needs of neurofibromatosis sufferers. Domestic equality legislation makes it unlawful for transport operators to discriminate against a disabled person simply because they are disabled, treat disabled people less favourably or fail to make reasonable adjustments in the way they provide their services, depending on the type of vehicles and the services they offer to the public.

    Furthermore, an extra level of protection is provided by recently implemented European regulations on passenger rights across all transport modes. These provide a set of rules for the treatment of disabled people and people with reduced mobility.

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

    Lord Beecham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, and within what timescales, to ensure that custody trials can be listed at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court, in the light of the closure of the court cells in December 2013 following safety concerns.

    Lord Faulks

    The cell accommodation at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court is housed within the interconnected Pilgrim Street Police Station which is due to close in summer 2014 and belongs to Northumbria Police.

    The cells have not been in use since 7April, 2014 when a temporary arrangement was put in place to enable urgent fire safety works to be undertaken. Whilst five of the 13 cells are unlikely to be used again due to safety concerns, the remaining eight are now available for use as the fire safety work has been completed.

    The current temporary closure has been extended until 30 May, 2014 to enable conclusion of discussions with the Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner over future use and maintenance of the cells once the Police Station closes.

    The temporary arrangement, comprising a daily remand court at North Tyneside and the listing of other custody work in available courtrooms across the court estate in Northumbria, is not wholly satisfactory and the impact is being assessed on a daily basis, in particular the impact on victims and witnesses. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is seeking to conclude the discussions with the Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner as quickly as possible and currently intends to resume use of the cells on 2 June, 2014.

  • Baroness Wheatcroft – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness Wheatcroft – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Wheatcroft on 2014-05-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many women prisoners had GCSE C-grade or equivalent in English and maths on being imprisoned in (1) 2010, (2) 2011, and (3) 2012; and how many had such qualifications upon release.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    We do not centrally hold information on the prior attainment of prisoners or their qualifications upon release.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what support his Department is giving to the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict for the campaign to eradicate the recruitment of children by government armed forces by 2016.

    Anna Soubry

    The Ministry of Defence provides no formal support to the UN Special Representative, but is taking steps to ensure that our recruitment activities are in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as stated in the answer given on 13 May 2013, (Official Report, column 98W) to the hon Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).

  • Roger Godsiff – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Roger Godsiff – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when he plans to bring forward legislative proposals on the use of wild animals in circuses.

    George Eustice

    We will introduce a Bill to end the use of wild animals in circuses when parliamentary time allows.

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many requests for discharge were made by soldiers aged (a) 19 and (b) 20 years who had served at least three years in the regular Army in the last five years; and what the outcome was of each such request.

    Anna Soubry

    Soldiers must normally serve a minimum of three years before they can voluntarily discharge with a year’s notice. Consequently, the number of applications from 19 year-olds is lower than from those aged 20 years of age. "Requests for discharge" has been interpreted as Voluntary Outflow Applications which are recorded on the Joint Personnel Administration system.

    The number of applications for voluntary discharge made by trained Regular Soldiers aged 19 and 20 between 1 March 2009 and 1 March 2014 are shown in the following table

    Age on Application No of Applications
    19 50
    20 330
    Total 380

    Source: Defence Statistics (Army)

    These figures include some personnel who applied for voluntary release, but who were subsequently discharged for other reasons. The actual numbers discharged between 1 March 2009 and 31 March 2014, and the reasons for the discharge are shown below:

    Age on Application

    19 20

    Voluntary Outflow 20 240

    Administrative discharge 10 30

    Medical/Other – 10

    Total 30 270

    Source: Defence Statistics (Army). Figures have been rounded to 10; numbers ending in "5" have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.

    These figures exclude requests for medical, administrative and disciplinary discharges. Some applications may have been withdrawn at a later date and that some individual soldiers may have applied for voluntary discharge more than once.

  • Dominic Raab – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Dominic Raab – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dominic Raab on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, how many public authorities in each category of public authority published equality information and objectives under the Equality Act (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 in each year since they came into force.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The specific information requested is not collected or held centrally.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), an independent statutory body, is responsible for the enforcement, monitoring and assessment of how public bodies comply with the public sector Equality Duty (PSED) and specific duties. The EHRC has published two reports to date which look at the performance of public bodies in England under the PSED and specific duties:

    • ‘Publishing equality information: Commitment, engagement and transparency’ was published in December 2012. This report looked at how public authorities had performed with regard to the first specific duty (publication of equality information). Data for this assessment was collected between February and April 2012 and covered 1,159 public authorities in England. The report indicated that about half of the public authorities reviewed were publishing equality information on their workforce and service users by April 2012. Many more (78%) were publishing information on either their staff or their service users.

    • ‘Assessment of the publication of equality objectives by English public authorities’ was published in Autumn 2013. This report sets out the findings of an assessment of how public authorities in England are publishing equality objectives. Data for the assessment was collected between September and December 2012 and covered 2,010 public authorities.

    These reports do not estimate the associated costs of producing and publishing equalities information.