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

Search

156482

registered interest
date	18/11/2014
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	Social Security Benefits
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the position of the government of the Republic of Ireland in respect of disregarding monies paid under its scheme to compensate sufferers of abuse in the Magdalene laundries and other institutions for the purposes of calculating benefits, why such payments are not disregarded, as a consequence of being made in response to a personal injury, in relation to benefits otherwise payable to such sufferers resident in the United Kingdom.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2924
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>The Government has sympathy for the women who suffered by their admission to and work in the Magdalen institutions. However, payments made under the Republic of Ireland’s <em>ex gratia</em> scheme do not meet GB legal criteria to be treated as personal injury payments. The payments are not being made ‘in consequence of any personal injury’, but are made in consequence of being admitted to a laundry, regardless of the effects. The amount each woman will receive is dependent on the length of time spent in the laundries and not on the specific effect that it has had on their health. They are also being made as part of a broader process of restorative justice by the Republic of Ireland Government.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has no plans to amend GB income-related benefit legislation to include specific disregards along the lines of the schemes mentioned. There is already provision in the benefit system to disregard payments made in respect of personal injury to avoid the need to disregard specific payments on an <em>ad hoc</em> basis. To amend legislation as new compensation schemes are introduced would add complexity to the benefit system and its administration.</p><p> </p><p>There is already provision in legislation to disregard some elements of the <em>ex gratia </em>payments. For example, Pension Credit – the income-related benefit most likely to be claimed - has no capital cut off limit. Where compensation in excess of the €50,000 lump sum maximum <em>ex gratia</em> award is payable as weekly payments, these will be disregarded under current Pension Credit and pension age Housing Benefit legislation.</p><p> </p><p>We understand that as of 6 August 2014 there had been a total number of approximately 760 applications to the scheme, around 160 of which were from UK residents. However, neither information regarding the number of UK applicants who are also in receipt of Pension Credit or other benefits, nor the amount of any <em>ex gratia</em> payments made is available. We are therefore unable to estimate the potential cost of a disregard.</p> answering member printed Lord Freud grouped question UIN HL2925 HL2926 question first answered 24/11/2014 14:37:32 answering member 3893 label Biography information for Lord Freud
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

156483

registered interest
date	18/11/2014
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	Social Security Benefits
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of potential applicants for United Kingdom benefits who have received compensation for abuse in the Magdalene laundries and other institutions under the scheme established by the government of the Republic of Ireland; and what is their estimate of the cost which would arise from a disregard being applied to such applications.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2925
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government has sympathy for the women who suffered by their admission to and work in the Magdalen institutions. However, payments made under the Republic of Ireland’s <em>ex gratia</em> scheme do not meet GB legal criteria to be treated as personal injury payments. The payments are not being made ‘in consequence of any personal injury’, but are made in consequence of being admitted to a laundry, regardless of the effects. The amount each woman will receive is dependent on the length of time spent in the laundries and not on the specific effect that it has had on their health. They are also being made as part of a broader process of restorative justice by the Republic of Ireland Government.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has no plans to amend GB income-related benefit legislation to include specific disregards along the lines of the schemes mentioned. There is already provision in the benefit system to disregard payments made in respect of personal injury to avoid the need to disregard specific payments on an <em>ad hoc</em> basis. To amend legislation as new compensation schemes are introduced would add complexity to the benefit system and its administration.</p><p> </p><p>There is already provision in legislation to disregard some elements of the <em>ex gratia </em>payments. For example, Pension Credit – the income-related benefit most likely to be claimed - has no capital cut off limit. Where compensation in excess of the €50,000 lump sum maximum <em>ex gratia</em> award is payable as weekly payments, these will be disregarded under current Pension Credit and pension age Housing Benefit legislation.</p><p> </p><p>We understand that as of 6 August 2014 there had been a total number of approximately 760 applications to the scheme, around 160 of which were from UK residents. However, neither information regarding the number of UK applicants who are also in receipt of Pension Credit or other benefits, nor the amount of any <em>ex gratia</em> payments made is available. We are therefore unable to estimate the potential cost of a disregard.</p> answering member printed Lord Freud grouped question UIN HL2924 HL2926 question first answered 24/11/2014 14:37:33 answering member 3893 label Biography information for Lord Freud
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

156484

registered interest
date	18/11/2014
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	Social Security Benefits
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to amend the relevant regulations to include specific disregards for payments to compensate sufferers of abuse in the Magdalene laundries and other institutions for the purposes of calculating benefits along the lines of those established for the McFarlane (Special Payments) Trusts, MFET Limited, the Skipton Fund and the Caxton Foundation; and if not, why not.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2926
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government has sympathy for the women who suffered by their admission to and work in the Magdalen institutions. However, payments made under the Republic of Ireland’s <em>ex gratia</em> scheme do not meet GB legal criteria to be treated as personal injury payments. The payments are not being made ‘in consequence of any personal injury’, but are made in consequence of being admitted to a laundry, regardless of the effects. The amount each woman will receive is dependent on the length of time spent in the laundries and not on the specific effect that it has had on their health. They are also being made as part of a broader process of restorative justice by the Republic of Ireland Government.</p><p> </p><p>The Government has no plans to amend GB income-related benefit legislation to include specific disregards along the lines of the schemes mentioned. There is already provision in the benefit system to disregard payments made in respect of personal injury to avoid the need to disregard specific payments on an <em>ad hoc</em> basis. To amend legislation as new compensation schemes are introduced would add complexity to the benefit system and its administration.</p><p> </p><p>There is already provision in legislation to disregard some elements of the <em>ex gratia </em>payments. For example, Pension Credit – the income-related benefit most likely to be claimed - has no capital cut off limit. Where compensation in excess of the €50,000 lump sum maximum <em>ex gratia</em> award is payable as weekly payments, these will be disregarded under current Pension Credit and pension age Housing Benefit legislation.</p><p> </p><p>We understand that as of 6 August 2014 there had been a total number of approximately 760 applications to the scheme, around 160 of which were from UK residents. However, neither information regarding the number of UK applicants who are also in receipt of Pension Credit or other benefits, nor the amount of any <em>ex gratia</em> payments made is available. We are therefore unable to estimate the potential cost of a disregard.</p> answering member printed Lord Freud grouped question UIN HL2924 HL2925 question first answered 24/11/2014 14:37:32 answering member 3893 label Biography information for Lord Freud
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

143460

registered interest
date	07/11/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Rights of Accused
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to investigate allegations that the security services or other government agencies have accessed client-lawyer communications, in breach of legal privilege.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2745
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>There are strict additional safeguards which apply when there is a possibility that interception or intrusive surveillance may obtain legally privileged material. These are set out in the Interception of Communications, Property Interference and Covert Surveillance codes of practice.</p><p>Agencies are already required to notify the Interception of Communications Commissioner or Surveillance Commissioner (for intrusive surveillance) in cases where legally privileged material has been or is likely to be obtained and they must make all material available for inspection by the Commissioners.</p><p>The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is able to consider cases where an individual believes that they have been subject to unlawful interception or use of surveillance powers.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates question first answered 18/11/2014 15:20:54 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

142600

registered interest
date	06/11/2014
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take steps to discourage public bodies from employing as auditors, accountants or financial advisers firms which have facilitated tax avoidance by the use of such devices as those employed in Luxembourg as described in <i>The Guardian</i> on 6 November.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2705
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2014 answer text <p>As stated in the Government publication ‘Managing Public Money’, which is available in the libraries of the House, during the evaluation stage of sourcing, it is important for public sector procuring organisations to establish the propriety of candidate suppliers.</p><p> </p><p>Her Majesty’s Government has taken robust action to tackle tax avoidance during this parliament, including through investing in HMRC compliance activities, identifying and closing loopholes, and making strategic reforms to the UK tax system, such as the UK’s first General Anti-abuse Rule.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Saltaire question first answered 20/11/2014 17:33:22 answering member 1816 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Saltaire
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

105771

registered interest
date	03/11/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Taxation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the justification for aggregating a range of welfare benefits in the annual tax statements now being published rather than differentiating between different categories.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2586
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The categories in the tax summary are based on those used in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA), which are internationally recognised categories. Based on customer research, some headings have been simplified to make them easier to understand, such as the inclusion of social protection in welfare. ‘State pensions’ was separated from the ‘welfare’ category because it is a substantial area of spend.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Deighton question first answered 17/11/2014 16:30:09 answering member 4262 label Biography information for Lord Deighton
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

105773

registered interest
date	03/11/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Detainees: Young People
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made to redraft the code of practice under the Police and Crime Evidence Act 1984 concerning the detention of teenagers.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2588
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>In October 2013 the Government made changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice C and H to require the police, as a matter of course, to provide 17 year olds with appropriate adult support and to inform a person responsible for their welfare of their detention. This made the position for 17 year olds consistent with that of 10 to 16 year olds. <br><br>The Government is committed to ensuring that young people are protected and treated appropriately while in police custody. Subsequent to making the changes in PACE Codes of Practice C and H, the Government launched an internal review into the outstanding primary provisions in PACE that continue to treat 17 year olds as adults. The Home Office has agreed PACE needs to be amended so that there is consistency in all the provisions that relate to the treatment of 17 year olds, thereby ensuring that they are treated as children.<br><br>The Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on 10 November presented the Government with an opportunity to make a partial change to the current provisions in PACE, specifically in respect to Part IV of PACE, relating to police detention. By amending the definition of ‘arrested juvenile’ in section 37(15) from ‘under the age of 17’ to ‘under the age of 18’, it will require the police to transfer 17 year olds to local accommodation following charge and the refusal of bail. The effect of this amendment will be <br>reflected in future guidance and training. This will make it is absolutely clear to practitioners and the public that 17 year olds will be treated as children by the police under Part IV of PACE. It will ensure that the police transfer 17 year olds to local authority accommodation overnight in circumstances where they have been denied bail.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates question first answered 17/11/2014 12:23:00 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

101269

registered interest
date	28/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Judges: Training
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the annual budget for the training of district judges (magistrates' courts) and deputy district judges (magistrates' courts) for each of the last five years, and for the current year.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2474
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The responsibility for the training of District Judges (magistrates’ courts) and deputies lies with the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary and is exercised through the Judicial College.</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to fully separate the budget figures between the DJ(MC)s and deputies as some continuation training events are attended jointly. Where it is possible to show separation it has been done.</p><p> </p><p /> <p /><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Attending</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Sub Totals</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total (£000s)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£185</p></td><td><p><strong>£185</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ</p></td><td><p>£22</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£162</p></td><td><p><strong>£184</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ</p></td><td><p>£23</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£205</p></td><td><p><strong>£228</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ</p></td><td><p>£20</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DJ</p></td><td><p>£83</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£133</p></td><td><p><strong>£236</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013/14</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ</p></td><td><p>£31</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£137</p></td><td><p><strong>£168</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014/15</strong></p></td><td><p>DDJ</p></td><td><p>£28</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>DDJ &amp; DJ</p></td><td><p>£122</p></td><td><p><strong>£150</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>These figures reflect a half-day sitting fee paid to DDJ(MC) attending training. However, recent Court decisions require the College to pay a full day’s sitting fee to certain fee-paid judiciary whilst attending training seminars, and this is not reflected in these figures. [For previous years the College paid a half-day sitting fee whilst attending training.]</p> answering member printed Lord Faulks question first answered 17/11/2014 12:02:40 answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

101270

registered interest
date	28/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Magistrates
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many lay magistrates were asked to step down by advisory committees in the last year for which there are data on the ground of failing to maintain the required competences; and how many magistrates each year undergo appraisal.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2475
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>The assessment of magistrates’ competence is a matter for the local Bench Training and Development Committee (BDTC), which reports to the advisory committee for the local justice area. Where the BDTC has concluded that a magistrate has failed, over a period of time, to reach the required standard the advisory committee may make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice that the magistrate should be removed from office.</p><p> </p><p>The process for removing a magistrate on such a basis is managed by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. One magistrate has been removed from the magistracy during the last year for failing to maintain the required competences.</p><p> </p><p>Magistrates are appraised on their performance once every three years for each jurisdiction (adult court, family court, youth court) in which they sit. Appraisals are carried out locally by trained appraisers in line with a nationally approved framework. On account of the three-yearly cycle, roughly a third of the approximately 21,000 magistrates in England and Wales could expect to undergo appraisal in any given year.</p> answering member printed Lord Faulks question first answered 11/11/2014 16:54:55 answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

101271

registered interest
date	28/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Magistrates: Training
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much HM Courts and Tribunal Service has spent on the expenses of magistrates undergoing training or development not provided by the Judicial College in each of the last five years; and what proportion of those expenses costs were taken up by travel.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL2476
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>The table below provides details of expenditure by HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the expenses of magistrates undergoing local training or development in each of the last five years.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Period</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Travel &amp; Subsistence </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Loss of Earnings (Financial Loss Allowance) </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total *</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£628,566</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£284,231</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£912,797</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£525,091</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£188,745</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£713,837</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£405,888</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£159,786</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£565,674</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£456,120</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£145,741</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£601,861</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013/14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£374,554</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£94,646</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£469,200</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>* Figures may not sum to total due to rounding</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p>The training consists of the minimum annual provision which has to be provided to Magistrates as agreed between the Judicial College and HMCTS. It also includes any training deemed necessary by each Magistrates Area Training Committee (MATC).</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to break down the travel expenses separately, due to the way the information is recorded on the database.</p> answering member printed Lord Faulks question first answered 17/11/2014 12:00:17 answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham