Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1126082

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Disability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many court buildings in the south east of England, excluding Greater London, were inaccessible to (a) defendants and witnesses, (b) members of the public and (c) court staff with disabilities in the week beginning 6 May 2019; and how many of those buildings were only temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts; and how many of those courts were inaccessible to at least one of those groups for (i) more than one week and (ii) more than one month in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
	tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
	uin	253544
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service is committed to ensuring access to courts and tribunals is maintained for staff and service users. We have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to accommodate those with particular access requirements. Disabled access was typically not factored in when many of our court and tribunal buildings were built. However, we have a number of accessible courts that our criminal justice partners are aware of, and these are used to list cases where a defendant might have accessibility needs.</p><p> </p><p>The majority of our buildings were accessible to the user groups listed during the period in question. Of the 81 total courts and tribunals in the South East, only 11 were inaccessible to witnesses and members of the public during the week commencing 6 May 2019, none were inaccessible to staff, whilst 39 were inaccessible to one very specific user group with disabilities (defendants using custodial facilities).</p><p> </p><p>3 of those buildings were temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts, of which 3 were inaccessible for more than one month.</p><p> </p><p>We aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. Where access issues do arise various mitigations are explored, including video-conferencing from a remote site, the use of judicial or staff lifts, or later start times for those who require longer to travel to court.</p><p> </p><p>Since 2015/16, we have invested more than £114m to improve court buildings and, in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £15m to be spent on improving maintenance and security across the estate.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:10:28 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1126083

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Disability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many court buildings in the Greater London were inaccessible to (a) defendants and witnesses, (b) members of the public and (c) court staff with disabilities in the week beginning 6 May 2019; and how many of those buildings were only temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts; and how many of those courts were inaccessible to at least one of those groups for (i) more than one week and (ii) more than one month in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
	tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
	uin	253545
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service is committed to ensuring access to courts and tribunals is maintained for staff and service users. We have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to accommodate those with particular access requirements. Disabled access was typically not factored in when many of our court and tribunal buildings were built. However, we have a number of accessible courts that our criminal justice partners are aware of, and these are used to list cases where a defendant might have accessibility needs.</p><p> </p><p>The majority of our buildings were accessible to the user groups listed during the period in question. Of the 56 total courts and tribunals in London, only 7 were inaccessible to witnesses and members of the public during the week commencing 6 May 2019, none were inaccessible to staff, whilst 26 were inaccessible to one very specific user group with disabilities (defendants using custodial facilities).</p><p> </p><p>2 of those buildings were temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts, of which 2 were inaccessible for more than one month.</p><p> </p><p>We aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. Where access issues do arise various mitigations are explored, including video-conferencing from a remote site, the use of judicial or staff lifts, or later start times for those who require longer to travel to court.</p><p> </p><p>Since 2015/16, we have invested more than £114m to improve court buildings and, in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £15m to be spent on improving maintenance and security across the estate.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:06:13 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1126084

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Disability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many court buildings in the Midlands were inaccessible to (a) defendants and witnesses, (b) members of the public and (c) court staff with disabilities in the week beginning 6 May 2019; and how many of those buildings were only temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts; and how many of those courts were inaccessible to at least one of those groups for (i) more than one week and (ii) more than one month in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
	tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
	uin	253546
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service is committed to ensuring access to courts and tribunals is maintained for staff and service users. We have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to accommodate those with particular access requirements. Disabled access was typically not factored in when many of our court and tribunal buildings were built. However, we have a number of accessible courts that our criminal justice partners are aware of, and these are used to list cases where a defendant might have accessibility needs.</p><p> </p><p>The majority of our buildings were accessible to the user groups listed during the period in question. Of the 44 total courts and tribunals in the Midlands, none were inaccessible to witnesses, staff or members of the public during the week commencing 6 May 2019, whilst 32 were inaccessible to one very specific user group with disabilities (defendants using custodial facilities).</p><p> </p><p>No buildings were temporarily inaccessible due to broken lifts.</p><p> </p><p>We aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. Where access issues do arise various mitigations are explored, including video-conferencing from a remote site, the use of judicial or staff lifts, or later start times for those who require longer to travel to court.</p><p> </p><p>Since 2015/16, we have invested more than £114m to improve court buildings and, in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £15m to be spent on improving maintenance and security across the estate.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:19:27 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1126085

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Disability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many court buildings in the north west of England were inaccessible to (a) defendants and witnesses, (b) members of the public and (c) court staff with disabilities in the week beginning 6 May 2019; and how many of those buildings were only temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts; and how many of those courts were inaccessible to at least one of those groups for (i) more than one week and (ii) more than one month in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
	tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
	uin	253547
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service is committed to ensuring access to courts and tribunals is maintained for staff and service users. We have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to accommodate those with particular access requirements. Disabled access was typically not factored in when many of our court and tribunal buildings were built. However, we have a number of accessible courts that our criminal justice partners are aware of, and these are used to list cases where a defendant might have accessibility needs.</p><p> </p><p>The majority of our buildings were accessible to the user groups listed during the period in question. Of the 45 total courts and tribunals in the North West, only 4 were inaccessible to witnesses or members of the public during the week commencing 6 May 2019, none were inaccessible to staff, whilst 25 were inaccessible to one very specific user group with disabilities (defendants using custodial facilities).</p><p> </p><p>No buildings were temporarily inaccessible due to broken lifts.</p><p> </p><p>We aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. Where access issues do arise various mitigations are explored, including video-conferencing from a remote site, the use of judicial or staff lifts, or later start times for those who require longer to travel to court.</p><p> </p><p>Since 2015/16, we have invested more than £114m to improve court buildings and, in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £15m to be spent on improving maintenance and security across the estate.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:02:28 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1126086

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Disability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many court buildings in the north east of England were inaccessible to (a) defendants and witnesses, (b) members of the public and (c) court staff with disabilities in the week beginning 6 May 2019; and how many of those buildings were only temporarily inaccessible in that week because of broken lifts; and how many of those courts were inaccessible to at least one of those groups for (i) more than one week and (ii) more than one month in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
	tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
	uin	253548
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service is committed to ensuring access to courts and tribunals is maintained for staff and service users. We have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to accommodate those with particular access requirements. Disabled access was typically not factored in when many of our court and tribunal buildings were built. However, we have a number of accessible courts that our criminal justice partners are aware of, and these are used to list cases where a defendant might have accessibility needs.</p><p>The majority of our buildings were accessible to the user groups listed during the period in question. Of the 51 total courts and tribunals in the North East, only four were inaccessible to witnesses and 3 to members of the public during the week commencing 6 May 2019, none were inaccessible to staff, whilst 34 were inaccessible to one very specific user group with disabilities (defendants using custodial facilities).</p><p>No buildings were temporarily inaccessible due to broken lifts. We aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. Where access issues do arise various mitigations are explored, including video-conferencing from a remote site, the use of judicial or staff lifts, or later start times for those who require longer to travel to court.</p><p>Since 2015/16, we have invested more than £114m to improve court buildings and, in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £15m to be spent on improving maintenance and security across the estate.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:22:54 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1126138

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Brexit
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff in his Department who were transferred or seconded to work (a) in other departments or (b) on other departmental briefs on preparations for the UK to leave the EU, have since returned to his Department.
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	uin	253467
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>39 Ministry of Justice staff were seconded to work in other departments since December 2018 as part of the no-deal preparations co-ordinated by Cabinet Office. At the current time, 34 staff have returned, with extensions agreed for the remaining 5 staff.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:16:33 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1126565

	registered interest
	date	14/05/2019
	answering body	Department for Education
	answering dept id	60
	answering dept short name	Education
	answering dept sort name	Education
	hansard heading	Department for Education: Sick Leave
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many and what proportion of officials in his Department took sick leave for reasons relating to stress in the last 12 months; what proportion that leave was of total sick leave taken in his Department; and what the cost was to his Department of officials taking sick leave over that period.
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	uin	254074
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>The number of employees in the department who were absent for stress-related reasons from 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 was 119, which represented 1.84% of the total workforce and 11.26% of the overall sickness absence.</p><p>The estimated cost of this sickness absence is £3,456,595 (based on a calculation of total working days lost multiplied by the daily rate of the department’s median salary).</p><p> </p><p>The department is committed to the health and wellbeing of all our employees, including helping them to manage stress in the workplace. There is a range of guidance and services in place to support the department’s employees such as Mental Health First Aiders, Employee Assistance Programmes and Fair Treatment Ambassadors.</p><p> </p><p>Sickness absence data for the Civil Service from 1999 to the first quarter of 2018 is published on GOV.UK and available at the following link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-sickness-absence" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-sickness-absence</a>.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Guildford answering member printed Anne Milton question first answered 21/05/2019 16:06:04 answering member 1523 label Biography information for Anne Milton
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1126605

	registered interest
	date	14/05/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Offences against Children: Extracurricular Activities
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will extend the definition of abuse of positions of trust in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to cover all adults working with children in extra-curricular activities.
	tabling member constituency	Eastbourne
	tabling member printed	Stephen Lloyd
	uin	254179
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>Any sexual activity with a child under 16 is a criminal offence, regardless of whether consent is given. Any non-consensual sexual activity is also a crime, whatever the age of the victim and whatever the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.</p><p> </p><p>I recognise that there are concerns about those who might abuse their position of power over a 16 or 17-year-old to pressure them into engaging in a sexual relationship. Such behaviour is very likely to be caught by the robust laws we already have in place,</p><p> </p><p>However, we remain absolutely committed to protecting children and young people from sexual abuse and we want to ensure that existing offences are being used effectively to tackle this behaviour, and that those working with young people understand their responsibilities and act appropriately.</p><p> </p><p>My department, working closely with colleagues across government, is taking forward a review of the existing law, to check that that it is working effectively and ensuring young people are protected.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 21/05/2019 16:14:27 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
	tabling member	3968 label Biography information for Stephen Lloyd

1126276

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Radiation Exposure
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the EU Directive 96/29/Euratom on safety standards relating to ionizing radiation, whether all those persons potentially exposed to ionizing radiation are receiving regular medical screening by specialists in radiation medicine.
	tabling member constituency	South Holland and The Deepings
	tabling member printed	Sir John Hayes
	uin	253503
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>Medical surveillance of classified radiation workers, as required by the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 (IRR 17), is an assessment of an individual’s medical fitness to work with ionising radiation. A classified radiation worker is a person who works with ionising radiation who could be exposed to higher levels of ionising radiation levels under both normal work and accident conditions. This assessment is performed by a doctor appointed by the Health and Safety Executive. Appointed Doctors have training in occupational medicine and have received additional training in the relevant aspects of the nature and effects of ionising radiation.</p><p> </p><p>Medical surveillance should occur prior to being classified and every 12 months thereafter, unless the doctor specifies a shorter review period.</p><p> </p><p>Special Medical surveillance by an Appointed Doctor must be arranged for any employee who has received, or is suspected to have received, an overexposure to ionising radiation, whether or not they are a classified person. The extent and nature of this will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case.</p><p> </p><p>The employer decides which Appointed Doctor(s) they will use to carry out medical surveillance. Whether or not the Appointed Doctor is an employee of that organisation, or independent of it, is a matter for the employer to decide upon.</p><p> </p><p>In the context of IRR 17, former armed services personnel involved in nuclear testing would be considered in the same way as any other workers exposed to ionising radiation in respect of the need for either medical surveillance or special medical surveillance.</p> answering member constituency North Swindon answering member printed Justin Tomlinson grouped question UIN 253504 question first answered 21/05/2019 16:09:10 answering member 4105 label Biography information for Justin Tomlinson
	tabling member	350 label Biography information for Sir John Hayes

1126277

	registered interest
	date	13/05/2019
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Radiation Exposure
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the EU Directive 96/29/Euratom on safety standards relating to ionizing radiation, whether (a) former armed service personnel involved in nuclear testing and (b) all those persons potentially exposed to ionizing radiation are receiving medical screening by specialists in radiation medicine independent of the Ministry of Defence.
	tabling member constituency	South Holland and The Deepings
	tabling member printed	Sir John Hayes
	uin	253504
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/05/2019 answer text <p>Medical surveillance of classified radiation workers, as required by the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 (IRR 17), is an assessment of an individual’s medical fitness to work with ionising radiation. A classified radiation worker is a person who works with ionising radiation who could be exposed to higher levels of ionising radiation levels under both normal work and accident conditions. This assessment is performed by a doctor appointed by the Health and Safety Executive. Appointed Doctors have training in occupational medicine and have received additional training in the relevant aspects of the nature and effects of ionising radiation.</p><p> </p><p>Medical surveillance should occur prior to being classified and every 12 months thereafter, unless the doctor specifies a shorter review period.</p><p> </p><p>Special Medical surveillance by an Appointed Doctor must be arranged for any employee who has received, or is suspected to have received, an overexposure to ionising radiation, whether or not they are a classified person. The extent and nature of this will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case.</p><p> </p><p>The employer decides which Appointed Doctor(s) they will use to carry out medical surveillance. Whether or not the Appointed Doctor is an employee of that organisation, or independent of it, is a matter for the employer to decide upon.</p><p> </p><p>In the context of IRR 17, former armed services personnel involved in nuclear testing would be considered in the same way as any other workers exposed to ionising radiation in respect of the need for either medical surveillance or special medical surveillance.</p> answering member constituency North Swindon answering member printed Justin Tomlinson grouped question UIN 253503 question first answered 21/05/2019 16:09:10 answering member 4105 label Biography information for Justin Tomlinson
	tabling member	350 label Biography information for Sir John Hayes