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
type
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100218

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Alcoholic Drinks: Misuse
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of changes in the rates of (a) alcohol-related crime and (b) binge drinking since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003.
	tabling member constituency	Mansfield
	tabling member printed	Sir Alan Meale
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	211227
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>It is difficult to draw causality between the Licensing Act 2003 and changing behaviours. The Licensing Act 2003 came into force in November 2005. Data on offences which are ‘alcohol related’ are drawn from the Crime Survey of England and Wales, which asks victims of violent incidents whether they perceived the offender to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence. By this measure, the number of violent incidents considered to be‘alcohol related’ has fallen from around 1.02 million incidents in 2005/06, to around 0.88 million incidents in 2012/13 (a fall of 14%). <br><br>The definition of binge drinking used by the NHS is drinking more than double the lower risk guidelines for alcohol in one session – more than 8 units for men and 6 units for women. The Opinions and Lifestyle survey, published by the Office of National Statistics provides our best measure for this. The data shows that in 2005, 23% of men and 15% of women drank over twice the lower risk guidelines on at least one day in the week before interview. This fell to 19 % of men and 11 % of women in 2012.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Lewes answering member printed Norman Baker question first answered 30/10/2014 11:50:15 answering member 28 label Biography information for Norman Baker
	tabling member	361 label Biography information for Sir Alan Meale

100211

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Asylum: Sudan
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the conditions of the recent report of the Dangers of Returning Home by Waging Peace on the monitoring of Sudanese nationals by Sudanese intelligence and security staff within UK borders and the use of the evidence gathered during detention and torture in Sudan, if the Government will reassess the appropriateness of the use of Detained Fast Track in Sudanese asylum cases.
	tabling member constituency	North West Norfolk
	tabling member printed	Mr Henry Bellingham
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	211403
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The Detained Fast Track (DFT) and the Detained Non-Suspensive Appeals (DNSA) process exist to deal with claims for asylum that appear, after screening, to be ones where a particularly quick decision can be made. Entry to the Detained Fast Track procedure is determined by reference to published policy available on the Gov.uk website. The policy neither requires nor excludes claims based on the nationality or country of origin of the claimants. The system operates flexibly and in cases where it becomes apparent that a claim is more complicated and cannot be determined within the DFT/DNSA indicative time-scale, the case is taken out of the process and the claimant normally released from detention.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire question first answered 17/11/2014 10:13:27 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire
	tabling member	1441 label Biography information for Lord Bellingham

100054

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the event of the United Kingdom not opting back into the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant, which member states still have on their statute books the legislation necessary to revert to the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition 1957.
	tabling member printed	Lord Inglewood
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL2260
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>All EU member states have ratified the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition (ECE). Consequently, they will all have legislation that allows them to operate the ECE with other ECE signatories who do not use the Arrest Warrant. However, a number of EU member states have subsequently passed specific legislation to implement the Arrest Warrant and would need to pass new domestic legislation in order to allow them to operate the ECE with the UK. In some cases, this could be a lengthy process. For example, we believe that it would take the Netherlands at least a year to pass the necessary legislation and during this time they would not be able to issue extradition requests to the UK, or respond to UK extradition requests. Effectively, this would make both countries a safe haven for each others’ criminals.<br><br>Under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, 22 Member States may also refuse to extradite its own nationals which means that some people may never face justice. In non-European Arrest Warrant cases, the following EU Member States have an absolute bar on extraditing their own nationals to the UK:<br><br>Austria<br>Belgium<br>Czech Republic<br>Finland <br>France<br>Germany<br>Greece<br>Latvia<br>Luxembourg<br>Slovakia<br>Slovenia<br>Spain<br>Sweden<br><br>A further nine have made declarations to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition to the effect that they will not extradite their own nationals:<br><br>Bulgaria<br>Croatia<br>Cyprus<br>Estonia<br>Hungary<br>Lithuania<br>Poland<br>Portugal<br>Romania</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates question first answered 17/11/2014 12:19:37 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
	tabling member	1980 label Biography information for Lord Inglewood