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
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

49771

registered interest
date	06/05/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether all people who received a Royal Prerogative of Mercy had their names listed in the London Gazette.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	197901
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>There are no statutory requirements relating to the publication of pardons granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. However, by convention, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery places a notice of such pardons granted in England and Wales in the London Gazette.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Ashford answering member printed Damian Green question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 76 label Biography information for Damian Green
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

49772

registered interest
date	06/05/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	197927
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· 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.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers grouped question UIN 197928 197929 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

49773

registered interest
date	06/05/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, when she first became aware that records on grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 had been lost.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	197928
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· 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.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers grouped question UIN 197927 197929 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

49774

registered interest
date	06/05/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, if she will publish the names of those people who received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; and when and for what reasons it was granted to each.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	197929
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· 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.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers grouped question UIN 197927 197928 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

48834

registered interest
date	28/04/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps officials of the UK Permanent Representation to the EU are taking to ensure that the Government's objectives are met for the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	196939
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/05/2014 answer text <p>I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.</p><p> </p><p>Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government's negotiating objectives.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison grouped question UIN 196937 196938 question first answered 07/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

48836

registered interest
date	28/04/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission on the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements through EU Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	196937
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/05/2014 answer text <p>I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.</p><p> </p><p>Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government's negotiating objectives.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison grouped question UIN 196938 196939 question first answered 07/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

48838

registered interest
date	28/04/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will discuss with the new European Commissioner for Health, at the earliest opportunity after his or her appointment, continued access by British consumers to safe, high potency vitamins and minerals; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	196938
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/05/2014 answer text <p>I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.</p><p> </p><p>Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government's negotiating objectives.</p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison grouped question UIN 196937 196939 question first answered 07/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

45465

registered interest
date	26/03/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if she will place in the Library a list of the members of the IRA who have been beneficiaries of the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	194053
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>Based on an assessment of the records held by my department, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) was granted in Northern Ireland365 times between 1979 and 2002, but this total does not include the period between 1987 and 1997 for which records cannot currently be found. The department does not hold information which specifically confirms whether individuals who received the RPM were members of prescribed groups. There are no cases where the RPM has been granted since the current Government came to office in May 2010, and the records indicate that there are no instances where the RPM was granted after 2002.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers question first answered 01/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

45468

registered interest
date	26/03/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who took the decision not to announce the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in respect of members of the IRA in the London Gazette or the Belfast Gazette.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	194052
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>There have been no instances in which the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) has been issued in respect of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland since the current Government came to power in May 2010<strong>.</strong></p><p> </p><p>I am not aware of any legal requirement to publish in the media information relating to the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM). In England and Wales, RPMs signed by HM the Queen, on the advice of the Secretary of State, are then passed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for sealing, who by convention subsequently places the notice in the London Gazette. By convention in Northern Ireland, RPMs signed by HM the Queen are not subsequently placed in the Belfast Gazette.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers grouped question UIN 194051 question first answered 28/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

45471

registered interest
date	26/03/2014
answering body	Northern Ireland Office
answering dept id	21
answering dept short name	Northern Ireland
answering dept sort name	Northern Ireland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for what reasons the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy granted in respect of members of the IRA was not announced in the London Gazette or the Belfast Gazette.
tabling member constituency	Vauxhall
tabling member printed	Kate Hoey
uin	194051
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/04/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>There have been no instances in which the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) has been issued in respect of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland since the current Government came to power in May 2010<strong>.</strong></p><p> </p><p>I am not aware of any legal requirement to publish in the media information relating to the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM). In England and Wales, RPMs signed by HM the Queen, on the advice of the Secretary of State, are then passed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for sealing, who by convention subsequently places the notice in the London Gazette. By convention in Northern Ireland, RPMs signed by HM the Queen are not subsequently placed in the Belfast Gazette.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Chipping Barnet answering member printed Mrs Theresa Villiers grouped question UIN 194052 question first answered 28/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1500 label Biography information for Theresa Villiers
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey