Date of Proceeding: 05.04.2011
Reference: 526 c123-4C
Answering Department: Minister for Women and Equalities
Lead Member: Featherstone, Lynne
Counter Member: Patel, Priti
Other Members:
Title: Women and equalities Equal Opportunities: nationality
Description/Summary: Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what guidance (a) the Government Equalities Office and (b) the Equality and Human Rights Commission issues on the practice of businesses offering discounts to persons based on their nationality. [47854]
[Official Report, 21 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 763W.]
Letter of correction from Lynne Featherstone:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on 21 March 2011. It is the Equality and Human Rights Commission that has published non-statutory guidance on the Equality Act 2010, not the European Court of Human Rights.
5 Apr 2011 : Column 14MC
The full answer given was as follows:
Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office has not issued any specific guidance relevant to the practice of business offering discounts to persons based on their nationality. The European Court of Human Rights has published non-statutory guidance on the Equality Act 2010 for service providers.
It would not normally be lawful for a business to offer discounts based on the protected characteristic of race, which includes nationality and ethnic or national origins.
The correct answer should have been:
Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office has not issued any specific guidance relevant to the practice of business offering discounts to persons based on their nationality. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published non-statutory guidance on the Equality Act 2010 for service providers.
It would not normally be lawful for a business to offer discounts based on the protected characteristic of race, which includes nationality and ethnic or national origins.
Date of Proceeding: 04.04.2011
Reference: 526 c12MC
Answering Department: Northern Ireland Office
Lead Member: Swire, Hugo
Counter Member: Long, Naomi
Other Members:
Title: Air Passenger Duty
Description/Summary: The following is the answer given by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) relating to a question from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) during Northern Ireland Question Time on 23 March 2011.
3. Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): What assessment he has made of the likely effects of changes in air passenger duty on business travel between Northern Ireland and London. [47494]
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): I have had meetings with the Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to discuss air passenger duty. My Treasury colleagues fully understand the issues involved. The rates that took effect last November were, of course, set and legislated for by the previous Government.
Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that, in addition to air passenger duty, Heathrow and Gatwick intend to levy passenger landing charges for regional flights, which will compound the problem. Will he confirm that this matter is at the top of his agenda, so that we can ensure that Northern Ireland businesses have access to the capital?
Mr Swire: Indeed; these things have been discussed at ministerial level. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here to listen to the hon. Lady's comments. We take this matter very seriously. A lot of the issues to do with Gatwick and Heathrow are commercial matters that are more properly dealt with by BAA.
[Official Report, 23 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 934.]
Letter of correction from Mr Hugo Swire:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 23 March 2011. It has come to our attention that commercial matters at Gatwick airport are not the responsibility of BAA, who recently sold the airport to a consortium, with the largest shareholder being Global Infrastructure Partners.
The correct answer should have been:
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): Indeed; these things have been discussed at ministerial level. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here to listen to the hon. Lady's comments. We take this matter very seriously. A lot of the issues to do with Gatwick and Heathrow are commercial matters that are more properly dealt with by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) and BAA respectively.
Date of Proceeding: 04.04.2011
Reference: 526 c11MC
Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Shapps, Grant
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Unpublished Research Reports: Immigration, the Economy and Regeneration
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from a written ministerial statement on ' Unpublished Research Reports: Immigration, the Economy and Regeneration ' given by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) on 1 March 2011.
(ix) Modelling and forecasting county court claims and orders for mortgage repossessions.
This report by Professor John Muellbauer and Janine Aron was commissioned jointly by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit and the UK Spatial Economic Centre. The study explores the determinants of mortgage possession court orders as well as forecasting court orders on a regional basis for England and Wales from 2011 to 2015. It observed that the recent house price and credit boom of 2006-08 had increased the proportion of households with overstretched budgets and over-extended debt relative to their assets. The most important determinant of court claims and orders was found to be the debt to income ratio. This report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £30,366.
[Official Report, 1 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 19-21WS.]
Letter of correction from Mr Grant Shapps:
An error has been identified in the written ministerial statement given on 1 March 2011. The penultimate sentence in the text in the section on the research project on mortgage repossessions should have referred to the debt service ratio, as the most important determinant of court claims, and not the debt to income ratio.
The correct text should have read:
(ix) Modelling and forecasting county court claims and orders for mortgage repossessions.
This report by Professor John Muellbauer and Janine Aron was commissioned jointly by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit and the UK Spatial Economic Centre. The study explores the determinants of mortgage possession court orders as well as forecasting court orders on a regional basis for England and Wales from 2011 to 2015. It observed that the recent house price and credit boom of 2006-08 had increased the proportion of households with overstretched budgets and over-extended debt relative to their assets. The most important determinant of court claims and orders was found to be the debt service ratio. This report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £30,366.
Date of Proceeding: 01.04.2011
Reference: 526 c10MC
Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Miller, Maria
Counter Member: Stewart, Iain
Other Members:
Title: Work and Pensions Employment Support Services
Description/Summary: Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of (a) members of the House of Commons Management Board, (b) heads of department of the House of Commons and (c) heads of each office or service in each House of Commons department are women. [47823]
[Official Report, 18 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 695W.]
Letter of correction from Mr John Thurso:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on 18 March 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
John Thurso: The information is as follows:
(a) The House of Commons Management Board comprises the Clerk of the House (Chair), the Directors General of the four departments of the House and the Director of PICT, which is a joint department of the two Houses. There is also an external member. The proportion of women is 17%. A new department, the Department of Finance, will be launched on 1 April 2011. The Head of the new department will sit on the Management Board, and her presence will alter the proportion of women on the Board to 29%. (b) The proportion of women who are heads of the four current departments of the House is zero and will rise to 20% of five departments in April. If PICT is included, the figures are 17.5% and 33% respectively. (c) Currently, there are 27 Directors/Heads of Office. 10 of these (43%) are women. If PICT is included, the figure is 37%.
The correct answer should have been:
John Thurso: The information is as follows:
(a) The House of Commons Management Board comprises the Clerk of the House (Chair), the Directors General of the four departments of the House and
1 Apr 2011 : Column 10MC
the Director of PICT, which is a joint department of the two Houses. There is also an external member. The proportion of women is 17%. A new department, the Department of Finance, will be launched on 1 April 2011. The Head of the new department will sit on the Management Board, and her presence will alter the proportion of women on the Board to 29%. (b) The proportion of women who are heads of the four current departments of the House is zero and will rise to 20% of five departments in April. If PICT is included, the figures are 20% and 33% respectively. (c) Currently, there are 23 Directors/Heads of Office below Head of Department level. 10 of these (43%) are women. If PICT is included, the figure is 37%.
Date of Proceeding: 31.03.2011
Reference: 526 c7-8MC
Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Webb, Steve
Counter Member: Reeves, Rachel
Other Members:
Title: Work and Pensions Draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011
Description/Summary: The following response was given by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) during the First Delegated Legislation Committee d ebate on the Draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011 on 21 March 2011.
31 Mar 2011 : Column 8MC
Steve Webb: The process is neutral: as the rebate falls, so too does the promise that has to be matched. Schemes could, if they wanted to-this is a substantive point-reduce their accrual rates within the scheme.
[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2011, c. 8.]
Letter of correction from Steve Webb:
I made the above statement in my response to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).
The correct response should have been:
Steve Webb: When the rebate rate is reduced in 2012, the reference scheme test for contracted-out salary-related schemes-Defined Benefit-will remain the same, so it is schemes that offer benefits that are more generous than the reference scheme test that could choose to adjust their benefits in order to take account of a reduction in the rebate.
Date of Proceeding: 29.03.2011
Reference: 526 c3-6MC
Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Davies, Philip
Other Members:
Title: Assaults on Police: Sentencing
Description/Summary: Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many assaults on police officers resulted in (a) custodial and (b) non-custodial sentences in the latest period for which figures are available; [44933]
(2) how many cautions were issued in each of the last three years for triable offences. [44934]
[Official Report, 10 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 1271W.]
29 Mar 2011 : Column 4MC
Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 10 March 2011. The figures in table 2 were incorrect.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for an assault on a constable at all courts, in England and Wales for 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 1. This is a summary only offence which is charged where little or no physical harm is involved. Where there are more serious injuries this would result in a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and it is not possible to say how many convictions for this offence arise from assaults on police officers.
The number of offenders cautioned for indictable only offences in England and Wales, 2007 to 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 2.
Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring of 2011.
[Table as originally provided printed. Click on Web Location to view]
Not shown
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for an assault on a constable at all courts, in England and Wales for 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 1. This is a summary only offence which is charged where little or no physical harm is involved. Where there are more serious injuries this would result in a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and it is not possible to say how many convictions for this offence arise from assaults on police officers.
The number of offenders cautioned for indictable only offences in England and Wales, 2007 to 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 2.
Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring of 2011.
[Corrected table printed - click on Web Location to view]
Table 1: Number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for assault on a constable( 1) at all courts, England and Wales, 2009( 2,3)Statute / Offence / Sentenced / Custodial sentence / Other disposals( 4)
Police Act 1996 / Assault on a constable / 9,201 / 1,457 / 7,744
(1) Police Act 1996 s.89(1)-Assault on a constable.
(2) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their Inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(4) Other disposals include: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, fine, community sentence, suspended sentence and otherwise dealt with.
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
Table 2: Number of offenders cautioned( 1,2) for indictable only offences, England and Wales, 2007-09( 3)
2007 / 2008 / 2009
Indictable only / 2,676 / 1,945 / 1,405
(1) The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When an offender has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence.
(2) From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These figures have been included in the totals.
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
Date of Proceeding: 21.03.2011
Reference: 525 19-22mc
Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Brown, Lyn
Other Members:
Title: JUSTICE Prostitution: Newham
Description/Summary: Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions there were for (a) kerb crawling, (b) soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place, (c) keeping a brothel and (d) control of prostitution in respect of offences committed in the London borough of Newham in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009 and (iii) 2010. [33388]
[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 652-53W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on 17 January 2011. The figures in the table for the number of defendants convicted for keeping a brothel in the Metropolitan police force area were incorrect along with some of the information included in the footnotes that accompanied the table.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 to 2009 can be viewed in the table.
Information at borough level is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.
Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring.
[Corrected table given]
Number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 - 09( 1,2,3)Offence / 2008 / 2009
Kerb crawling / 165 / 117
Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place / 114 / 65
Keeping a brothel / 11 / 15
Control of prostitution / 16 / 4
(1)The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(2 )Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(3) Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:
Kerb crawling:
Sexual Offences Act 1985, s.1
Kerb crawling
Sexual Offences Act 1985, s.2
Persistent soliciting of person or persons for the purpose of prostitution
Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place:
Sexual Offences Act 1985, s.1
Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution
Keeping a brothel:
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.33A as added by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.55
Keeping a brothel for prostitution
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.33
Keeping a brothel
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.34
Letting premises for use as a brothel
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.35
Tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.36
Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.33 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967
Keeping a brothel for homosexual practices
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.34
Letting premises for use as a brothel for homosexual practices
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.35 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.53
Tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel for homosexual practices
Similar provisions in Local Acts
Other offences against keeping a brothel
Control of prostitution:
Sexual Offences Act 2001 s.53
Controlling prostitution for gain
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.
Date of Proceeding: 21.03.2011