Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the current arrangements for NHS staff to express opinions about practices and treatments about which they have concerns.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government wants National Health Service staff to have the confidence to speak out and come forward if they have concerns. There are currently over 1,200 local Freedom to Speak Up Guardians across healthcare in England who provide a route for workers to express any concerns about the practices and treatments in their organisation. Over 133,000 cases have been reported to Guardians since the policy was establishment in 2016, and in 2023/24 79.8% of staff who received support from their Guardian and gave feedback said they would speak up again.
Despite this, the 2023 NHS staff survey results showed that only 50% felt that if they spoke up about something that concerned them, their organisation would address their concern. There is therefore a lot more to do before speaking up can be described as business as usual in the NHS.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government why Russian state-owned companies are being allowed access to UK courts to pursue litigation concerning penalties imposed by Russian courts.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The question of whether courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by parties from other countries are determined by the courts in accordance with common law principles and international conventions.
In English and Welsh law, the determination of the appropriate forum (where no international convention applies) to hear a dispute is the one in which the case may most suitably be tried in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. Matters which a court will take into account in deciding this would include whether there are any factors connecting the dispute to a particular jurisdiction.
It is open to the opposing party to challenge a claim on the basis that it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government on what basis UK courts have had jurisdiction to hear cases started in Russian Courts between Russian companies and individuals since the start of the war in Ukraine.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The question of whether courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by parties from other countries are determined by the courts in accordance with common law principles and international conventions.
In English and Welsh law, the determination of the appropriate forum (where no international convention applies) to hear a dispute is the one in which the case may most suitably be tried in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. Matters which a court will take into account in deciding this would include whether there are any factors connecting the dispute to a particular jurisdiction.
It is open to the opposing party to challenge a claim on the basis that it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have received advice regarding the prevention of broken protective earthed neutral conductors in the electrical systems of tower blocks and other sensitive buildings.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
I am aware of my Noble Friend's long-standing interest in electrical safety in tower blocks and sensitive buildings. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) keeps evidence that emerges from the electrical incidents database and its engagement with stakeholders, under review. My secretary will write to HSE officials and ask whether they might meet with you, so that you can explain the issue.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the difference between the amounts agreed by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in respect of fees for services and access to justice for UK legal firms on behalf of Russian individuals and companies (1) before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and (2) since the invasion.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.
OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.
OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.
Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will list the UK-registered companies and partnerships that the Office of Financial Sanction Implementation assessed for legal payments between October 2023 and April 2024.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.
OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.
OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.
Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the level of payment allowed by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation between 24 February and 31 October 2022 under the ‘access to justice’ arrangements.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.
OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.
OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.
Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is allowing payments to representatives of sanctioned Russian Companies and individuals while war in Ukraine continues.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.
OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.
OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.
Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to update the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 to include folic acid fortification.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The UK notified the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in February that we intended to lay a Statutory Instrument that will amend the Bread and Flour Regulations.
My Ministerial colleagues are considering next steps on this issue. Changes to rules could include clarifying definitions; providing for the fortification of wheat flour with folic acid; exemptions to avoid disproportionate impacts for businesses; and a change to the enforcement approach.
Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether all residents of Knighton, regardless of whether they reside in the English or Welsh parts of the town, have access to the town’s job centre.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie
Universal Credit operates on postcodes therefore when a claim is made, the individual will be automatically assigned to the Jobcentre which serves that postcode. Customers in Knighton are allocated to Llandrindod Wells Jobcentre Plus.