Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Secretary of State for Justice on 6 December (HC Deb, col 110) concerning the comprehensive review of the probation system, why the review will not be completed until April 2017; whether they intend to provide an update on the interim findings; and whether the findings of the final review will be published.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The review is considering how well the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms have worked and what changes, if any, are necessary to deliver the policy objectives of reducing reoffending and protecting the public. The timescales for the review reflect its broad scope and the need for close engagement with probation providers. The internal review will inform our more detailed plans which we will publish shortly after the review.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to bring into force paragraph 11 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 regarding bail hearings for individuals in immigration detention.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
We are currently working with the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Court Service and the First-tier Tribunal to implement the Secretary of State’s duty to arrange consideration of bail, as set out in paragraph 11 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. This is just one part of a large number of changes necessary to implement the wider immigration bail provisions in Schedule 10 and will be commenced alongside those other provisions in due course.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in introducing individual removals plans as outlined in their response to the independent review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, published on 14 January.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Since the publication of the Government’s response to Stephen Shaw’s Report into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons on 14 January, work has been ongoing to design a more effective case management process to replace the existing method of reviewing detention.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to change their revised definition of torture issued on 12 September, in the light of position statement PS07/16 of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the definition of torture in the context of immigration detention policy, issued in December.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Following a court order dated 2 December 2016 in the case of R (on the application of Medical Justice) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of the Home Office policy on adults at risk in immigration detention, the Home Office has reverted to the pre-12 September definition of torture in the context of immigration detention, until the Court reaches its final judgment in the case. As court proceedings are ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on the statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there is any agreement by the US to defray the costs of maintaining the presence of UK military personnel on the island of Diego Garcia.
Answered by Earl Howe - Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
The 1966 Exchange of Notes is the agreement between the UK and the US detailing the conditions and permitted use of the British Indian Ocean Territory by the US Government. As part of this agreement the US do not currently provide Her Majesty's Government with funding towards the costs of our military personnel based in the territory.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under the 1966 UK–US Exchange of Notes concerning British Indian Ocean Territories, the US were consulted about the possibility of resettlement on Diego Garcia; and if so, what was their response.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The decision against resettlement has taken into account a wide range of views from all stakeholders, including the US. But security of the military facility is not the only factor in our decision against resettlement. Even if it were possible to work around the security implications of resettlement, the overwhelming practical challenges and costs of resettlement remain.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the current annual costs, including salaries and all other incidental costs, which fall to the defence budget for maintaining the presence of UK military personnel on the island of Diego Garcia.
Answered by Earl Howe - Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
The defence budget for Diego Garcia in Financial Year 2016-17 is £3.085 million.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many UK military personnel are currently deployed on the island of Diego Garcia.
Answered by Earl Howe - Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
As of November 2016 there are 41 UK military personnel deployed to Diego Garcia.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that people who are deafblind, and those with complex needs, benefit from plans to halve the disability employment gap.
Answered by Lord Freud
The Government is committed to enabling all disabled people to fulfil their potential and achieve their aspirations. Work is an important part of this, which is why the Government has committed itself to halving the disability employment gap.
We will soon publish a Green Paper on work and health and conduct a consultation to understand how every individual can have the opportunity to work and share in the economic and health benefits that work brings, regardless of their health condition or disability. We will continue to engage with key stakeholders that support deaf blind people as part of the Green Paper consultation.
The feedback from the consultation and the work that we are doing to build and test the evidence base will help us to find out what really works to remove the barriers disabled people and people with health conditions face in getting and staying in work.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have drawn from the research commissioned by the Department for Education in 2010 into the development of government guidance on governance arrangements in children’s services: <i>Research governance in children’s services: the scope for new advice</i>.
Answered by Lord Nash
This report highlighted the importance of governance and ethical consideration in children’s services research. The report suggested that at the time of the research, local practice was variable, but there were, and still are, a number of accepted research governance arrangements in place for local authorities and other research organisations to seek guidance and approval, including the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), the Social Research Association, the NSPCC, and university ethics boards. The Department for Education has concluded that these arrangements are the best route for local authorities and external research organisations to obtain external guidance on research governance and ethics.
Following publication of the report, the Department, in consultation with the ADCS Research Group, has developed ethics guidance and an ethics checklist for its own funded research and evaluation. This is based on the Government Social Research Professional Guidance, which sets out the principles that should be used when conducting social research for the Government. It states that those conducting, commissioning or managing Government social research have a responsibility to ensure that research is conducted using appropriate methods and that the rights and interests of all those involved in the research process are protected. Research should be conducted in a manner that:
ensures valid, informed consent is obtained before individuals participate in research (for children under 16, parents/legal guardians as well as the children themselves must be approached for consent to participate);
takes reasonable steps to identify and remove barriers to participation;
avoids personal and social harm; and
protects the confidentiality of information about research participants and their identities.