Tag: Philip Davies

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-09-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for what reasons his Department sought the deemed consent arrangements for grants from HM Treasury under Section 64 of the Health and Public Act 1968; and what the job titles are of the officials in his Department that were involved in those discussions.

Jane Ellison

The Department agreed deemed consent arrangements with HM Treasury to reduce the administrative burden, recognising that newer grant giving legislation did not require similar approvals, and to streamline the grants making process, whilst maintaining the same level of oversight and scrutiny of cases. The decision was made with the agreement of the Director of Group Finance and the Deputy Director – Voluntary Sector Grants.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-06-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people are currently employed in prisons to calculate the release date of prisoners.

Jeremy Wright

The number of staff employed in prisons specifically for the purpose of calculating release dates for prisoners is not held on central systems. To obtain the information would involve collecting data from every establishment, which would entail disproportionate cost.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-01-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners are currently serving sentences in the UK that were (a) handed down by the International Criminal Court or (b) heard at the Hague.

Andrew Selous

One prisoner convicted and sentenced at The Hague by the Special Court for Sierra Leone is serving his sentence in the United Kingdom. There are no prisoners serving sentences in the UK which were handed down by the International Criminal Court.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2015-09-16.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 27 July 2015 to Question 7826, what his definition is of a contentious grant; and whether any grants have come into this category since October 2014.

Greg Hands

The principles and guidance for government departments set out in Managing Public Money explain that departments need Treasury consent before undertaking expenditure. Specific Treasury approval is required for any spending outside delegated authorities or which set precedents, are novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector. Managing Public Money does not seek to define these terms beyond their normal meaning, but does include the Treasury’s expectation (in respect of certain payments) that the responsible accounting officers would feel able to justify proposed payments in parliament if challenged.

The scheme described in response to Question 7826 was established in line with these principles.The Treasury was not asked to give specific approval to any of the grants made since 2014 under section 64 of the Health and Public Health Act 1968 mentioned in the Hon. Member’s previous question.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average compensation payment ordered in employment tribunal cases relating to discrimination on the grounds of religion was by the religious belief of the complainant in each of the last five years.

Mr Shailesh Vara

I am answering these questions together.

Data on highest compensation awards for discrimination jurisdictions for the last five years are set out in Tables E6 to E10 of the latest Official Statistics release published by the Ministry of Justice, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2013.

Data on average compensation awards in race discrimination and religious discrimination claims are set out in Tables E6 and E9 of that publication, respectively.

Information on the nature of complaints upheld, and the type of race or religion relevant to individual claims, is not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost following a manual trawl of all relevant tribunal files. The records retention and disposal schedule applicable to such tribunal files also means that information covering each of the last five years would not be held.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders were bailed under an electronic curfew and went on to receive a custodial sentence in the latest period for which figures are available.

Jeremy Wright

Information on bail and remand collected centrally by the Ministry of Justice and held on the Court Proceedings Database does not record whether conditions (including the use of electronic monitoring) were attached to bail. To answer this Question would require a data matching exercise between data held by the electronic monitoring contractors and sentencing data held by the Ministry of Justice, which could be done only at disproportionate cost.