John Hemming

Liberal Democrat - Former Member for Birmingham, Yardley

First elected: 5th May 2005


John Hemming is not a member of any APPGs
Backbench Business Committee
30th Jun 2014 - 30th Mar 2015
Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)
12th Jul 2010 - 30th Mar 2015
Statutory Instruments (Select Committee)
12th Jul 2010 - 30th Mar 2015
Procedure Committee
2nd May 2006 - 30th Mar 2015
Regulatory Reform
12th Jul 2005 - 30th Mar 2015
Backbench Business Committee
10th Jun 2013 - 14th May 2014
Draft Deregulation Bill (Joint Committee)
10th Jul 2013 - 11th Dec 2013
Backbench Business Committee
12th Jun 2012 - 25th Apr 2013
Backbench Business Committee
29th Jun 2010 - 1st May 2012
Draft Legal Services Bill (Joint Committee)
15th May 2006 - 25th Jul 2006


Division Voting information

John Hemming has voted in 1860 divisions, and 58 times against the majority of their Party.

23 Feb 2015 - Serious Crime Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 233 Noes - 296
24 Nov 2014 - Recall of MPs Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 37 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 236 Noes - 65
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House) - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 436 Noes - 49
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 39 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 56 Noes - 454
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 449 Noes - 33
14 May 2014 - Deregulation Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 227 Noes - 283
4 Feb 2014 - Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 292 Noes - 239
20 Nov 2013 - Defence Reform Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 45 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 252 Noes - 306
17 Jul 2013 - Organ Transplants - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 203
17 Jul 2013 - Organ Transplants - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 300 Noes - 202
5 Jun 2013 - Badger Cull - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 250 Noes - 299
4 Jun 2013 - Energy Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 16 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 29 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 290
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 148 Noes - 339
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 37 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 163 Noes - 321
15 May 2013 - Economic Growth - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 46 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 130 Noes - 277
16 Apr 2013 - Growth and Infrastructure Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 286 Noes - 259
16 Apr 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 310 Noes - 244
16 Apr 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 42 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 312 Noes - 245
16 Apr 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 48 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 316 Noes - 241
16 Apr 2013 - Defamation Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 298 Noes - 230
7 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 27 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 13
4 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 37 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 225 Noes - 298
4 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 37 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 0 Noes - 0
4 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 231 Noes - 296
4 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 39 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 227 Noes - 295
29 Jan 2013 - Equality (Marriage) (Amendment) - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 11 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 86 Noes - 31
28 Jan 2013 - Succession to the Crown Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 38 Noes - 371
18 Dec 2012 - Justice and Security Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 262 Noes - 18
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 21 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 22 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 256
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 25 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 233
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 35 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 184
12 Mar 2012 - Backbench Business Committee - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 27 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 105 Noes - 186
12 Mar 2012 - Backbench Business Committee - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 20 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 101 Noes - 166
12 Mar 2012 - Backbench Business Committee - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 21 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 82
7 Dec 2011 - London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 17 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 57 Noes - 145
5 Dec 2011 - Ministerial Statements - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 33 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 119 Noes - 228
30 Nov 2011 - Hairdressers Registration (Amendment) - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 9 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 10 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 63 Noes - 67
10 Oct 2011 - Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3) - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 42 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 62 Noes - 243
22 Jun 2011 - Smoking in Private Vehicles - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 11 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 78 Noes - 66
4 May 2011 - Sex Education (Required Content) - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 11 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 67 Noes - 61
13 Oct 2010 - Public Houses and Private Members’ Clubs (Smoking) Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 18 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 86 Noes - 141
9 Sep 2010 - UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 5 Noes - 311
19 Jan 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 35 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 183 Noes - 303
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 23 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 25 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 298
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 31 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 183 Noes - 308
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 16 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 355 Noes - 129
25 Jun 2008 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 42 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 330 Noes - 131
20 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 292
20 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 27 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 28 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 173 Noes - 309
19 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 40 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 176 Noes - 336
19 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 29 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 223 Noes - 286
19 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 20 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 34 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 181 Noes - 314
19 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 43 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 163 Noes - 342
19 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 22 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 32 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 200 Noes - 293
13 May 2008 - Education and Skills Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 35 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 37 Noes - 359
12 May 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 37 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 340 Noes - 78
5 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 46 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 355 Noes - 218
26 Jun 2007 - Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill [Money] - View Vote Context
John Hemming voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 12 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 20 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 197 Noes - 165
View All John Hemming Division Votes

All Debates

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
John Bercow (Speaker)
(29 debate interactions)
Steve Barclay (Conservative)
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(18 debate interactions)
Theresa May (Conservative)
(17 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
HM Treasury
(96 debate contributions)
Leader of the House
(96 debate contributions)
Ministry of Justice
(86 debate contributions)
Department for Work and Pensions
(49 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
John Hemming has not made any spoken contributions to legislative debate
View all John Hemming's debates

Birmingham, Yardley Petitions

e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.

If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.

If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).

John Hemming has not participated in any petition debates

Latest EDMs signed by John Hemming

17th March 2015
John Hemming signed this EDM on Wednesday 25th March 2015

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION FUTURE FUNDING CAMPAIGN

Tabled by: Clive Betts (Labour - Sheffield South East)
That this House welcomes the Local Government Association's Future Funding campaign and supports its aim of securing sustainable long-term funding for local authorities; acknowledges that councils have made £20 billion worth of savings since 2010, and applauds their resilience and ability to innovate; recognises that millions of people rely on …
30 signatures
(Most recent: 25 Mar 2015)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 11
Conservative: 2
Independent: 1
9th March 2015
John Hemming signed this EDM on Wednesday 25th March 2015

FUNDING OF FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES

Tabled by: Barry Sheerman (Labour (Co-op) - Huddersfield)
That this House believes that further education colleges are central to improving the nation's skills; shares the concerns of those working and studying in further education regarding the recently announced 24 per cent cuts to non-apprenticeship adult education funding in England; recognises that this will have a devastating effect on …
63 signatures
(Most recent: 25 Mar 2015)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 25
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Green Party: 1
The Independent Group for Change: 1
View All John Hemming's signed Early Day Motions

Commons initiatives

These initiatives were driven by John Hemming, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.

MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.


John Hemming has not been granted any Urgent Questions

John Hemming has not been granted any Adjournment Debates

3 Bills introduced by John Hemming


A Bill to make provision regarding arrangements for children involved in court proceedings; to make provision about the transparency, administration and accountability of courts and case conferences; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the number of prisoners who have exceeded their tariff and have not been released because they do not admit guilt; to extend the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s powers to obtain information; to make provision about consumer complaints in markets for public services; to amend certain sections of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to contracts; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 40%

Last Event - 2nd Reading: House Of Commons
Friday 17th October 2014

A Bill to make provision regarding arrangements for children involved in court cases; to make provision about the transparency, administration and accountability of courts and case conferences; to require the promotion of measures to assist families and such other persons as may be specified to reduce the cost of living through lower fuel bills; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 40%

Last Event - 2nd Reading: House Of Commons
Friday 26th October 2012

A Bill to ensure that individuals claiming state benefits are automatically enrolled onto alternative benefits to which they are entitled when a benefit ceases to be applicable; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Commons
Tuesday 5th November 2013

John Hemming has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 40 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
5th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will issue guidance on the age threshold at which and for what period leaving one or more children alone or in charge of another child at home is an advisory issue, a child protection issue or a criminal offence.

The law is clear that any adult who has responsibility for any child or young person under 16 can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child unsupervised “in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health” (Section 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933).

There are no plans for the Department for Education to issue guidance. The choice to leave children home alone is left to the parents to decide using their own judgement. The NSPCC produce guidance on this, which sets out the law and when it would become a child protection issue or a criminal offence to leave a child at home alone. The guidance can be found online at:

www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/advice-and-info/home-alone-guide-keeping-child-safe.pdf

4th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will review The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 in accordance with the families test as recently announced by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The Education Act 1996 places a duty on the parents of any child of compulsory school age who is registered at a school, to ensure their child’s regular attendance. The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulation 2006 and subsequent amendments provide the basis upon which schools record pupil attendance. It ensures that both parents and the school know the whereabouts of pupils and are held to account for fulfilling their duty towards those pupils.

This is not new Government policy and it has been the result of considerable deliberation and scrutiny. The Department for Education does not intend to review the application of the 2013 Regulations in light of the announcement made by my Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding the families test.

3rd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which overseas counterparts have complained to the Government about matters relating to adoption, care proceedings or other matters relating to child protection in the UK; and what the substance of those complaints was.

Data on the overall number of contacts from equivalent Departments overseas are not collated centrally within the Department for Education.

Over the past year, however, Government officials have held positive discussions, covering a wide range of international child safeguarding issues, with representatives from a number of European nations including Poland, the Slovak Republic, and the Czech Republic.

1st Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 1 December 2014 to Question 215721, if she will place in the Library the calculation which found that the cost of providing the information requested in that Question was disproportionate.

A sizeable number of files would need to be reviewed to answer this question. DFID’s database shows over 500 files for the department which dealt with the Overseas Territories for file period 1995/97 alone. It costs £1.50 to access each file. The costs associated with archive research covering the period 1994 to 2004 would therefore be considerable. In addition to financial costs there would also be substantial associated staff costs with carrying out this archive research.

On the basis of the disproportionate cost threshold for written questions, it was assessed that this information could not be collated without incurring disproportionate cost.

24th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what reports or assessments have been commissioned into child protection proceedings in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies since 1994; when each such report or assessment was commissioned; which jurisdiction was the subject of each such report or assessment; and which external agency was involved in each case.

Details of reports or assessments commissioned into child protection since 1994 would require extensive archive research at a disproportionate cost to the UK taxpayer.

DFID has supported the Overseas Territories (OTs) in developing capacity to manage and improve child safeguarding since 2005, working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). This has included the joint commissioning of a number of reports and assessments, primarily:

· Pitcairn Child Safeguarding Reviews 2009, 2011 and 2013, conducted by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and independent Social Work experts from New Zealand

· St Helena Child Safeguarding Review 2013, conducted by Lucy Faithfull Foundation

· In July the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced it would be establishing an independent Inquiry into child abuse allegations on St Helena. The aim of this inquiry is to establish the truth surrounding allegations of a HMG and St Helena Government conspiracy to cover up child abuse in St Helena and make recommendations. Sasha Wass QC will be leading the inquiry and this was announced to Parliament on 20 November.

DFID does not provide support to the Crown Dependencies.

26th Jan 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many explosions of manhole covers there have been since 2000; in how many such cases people were injured; how many explosions have occurred twice in the same location; and if he will make a statement.

HSE collect statistics on injuries through the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations but not on explosions of manhole covers. Since 2000 there was one injury reported where the incident involved an explosion lifting a manhole cover.

HSE are working with utility providers to understand how and why incidents like this occur.

Mark Harper
Secretary of State for Transport
22nd Oct 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reasons the terms of reference for Matthew Oakley's review of jobseeker's allowance sanctions omitted sanctions for employment and support allowance.

The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, required the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the operation of sanctions validated by the legislation. The terms of reference reflect this requirement.

However, the Government Response to the Oakley Review goes wider than the terms of reference. For example, we are reviewing all claimant communications and sanctions processes, not only for those Jobseekers Allowance claimants who come under the remit of the Report, but all JSA claimants and also all Employment Support Allowance claimants.

Esther McVey
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
20th Oct 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the oral contribution by the Minister of State for Disabled People of 5 September 2014, Official Report, column 554, what the evidential basis is for his statement that the Affordable Homes Bill would cost about £1 billion of public expenditure.

The calculation of the £1 billion cost of the Affordable Homes Bill was made on Thursday 4th September by Departmental Officials following an assessment of the potential effects of the provisions set out in the draft Bill at Second Reading.

The potential cost was estimated using administrative data (Single Housing Benefit Extract) and the department’s policy simulation model.

Esther McVey
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
20th Oct 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will review sanctions for employment and support allowance.

As with all our policies, we will continue to keep the operation of the sanctions system under review to ensure that it continues to operate effectively and as fairly as possible. We also continue to make improvements as committed to in the Oakley Review.

Esther McVey
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he plans to implement a universal credit sanctions scheme to replace the current jobseeker's allowance and other sanctions scheme.

In 2012 revised sanctions regimes introduced into Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance moved us towards the Universal Credit system, with the same value of sanction across all benefits and the same duration of sanctions at medium and high levels.

We continue to monitor sanctions closely and consider opportunities for continuous improvement.

Esther McVey
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
8th Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 5 December 2014 to Question 216865, what estimate he has made of the cost of obtaining the information requested; and on what basis that estimate was arrived at.

The guide to Parliamentary work (available on the Cabinet Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work and already in the Library of the House) sets out that Government departments can refuse to answer a question where the cost of responding to that question would be above the disproportionate cost threshold, which is currently set at £850. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office calculated that collating a response to the hon. Member’s question would exceed this threshold.

2nd Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what reports or assessments have been commissioned by the UK Government on child protection proceedings in the British Overseas Territories between 2000 and 2005; when each such report or assessment was commissioned; which jurisdiction was the subject of each such report or assessment; and which external agency undertook the assessment or produced the report in each such case.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost as we do not hold this information centrally. However, you will know from answers to your previous questions on this subject the importance the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) attaches to protecting children from harm, and the more recent projects and ongoing work.
24th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what reports or assessments have been commissioned on child protection proceedings in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies since 1994; when each such report or assessment was commissioned; which jurisdiction was the subject of each such report or assessment; and what external agency was used in each case.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has supported the Overseas Territories (OTs) in developing capacity to manage and improve child safeguarding since 2005, through the joint commissioning of a number of reports and assessments:

• On 21 July 2014 the former FCO Minister for Overseas Territories, the Hon Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) announced to Parliament that the FCO would be establishing an independent Inquiry into child abuse allegations on St Helena. On 20 November 2014, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament that Sasha Wass QC will be leading the inquiry.

• In March 2014: Northumbria Police investigation into observations of child safeguarding provisions and the effectiveness and efficiency of the St Helena Police force.

• A review of Policing in St Helena was undertaken by Simon Martin, Southern Ocean Law Enforcement Adviser 4-6 March 2013.

• In September 2013 the Lucy Faithfull foundation carried out a St Helena Child Safeguarding Review 2013. An executive summary was published at the time.

• In November 2012 Sussex Constabulary investigated complaints about police officers in an Ascension Island investigation.

• A primary investigation into the allegations raised in an anonymous letter received by the FCO on 7 November 2012 led by Lewis Evans, Immigration Executive Officer on Ascension and St Helena.

• There were three Pitcairn Child Safeguarding Reviews in 2009, 2011 and 2013, conducted by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and independent Social Work experts from New Zealand.

• A Child Safety Review in the Falkland Islands by the Lucy Faithful Foundation in June 2013 with a report published in August 2013.

• The Lucy Faithful Foundation produced a preliminary report in 2014 on Montserrat.

• There have been the following DFID initiatives since 2005: The Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2009-2013), followed on from a Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008).

• In September 2014 a dedicated Child Safeguarding and Domestic Violence Policy Officer position was created within the Overseas Territories Directorate of the FCO to encourage compliance with best practice and support the Territories in establishing and improving existing measures that promote welfare and protect children from harm.

As self governing jurisdictions the Crown Dependencies have their own systems in place and responsibility for child safeguarding, as such there has been no reason for HMG to commission any reports.

You have asked for details of reports or assessments commissioned into child protection since 1994. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

12th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the Answer of 17 March 2014 to Question 191665, if his Department will respond in writing to the final report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism dated 28 February 2014 by the Human Rights Council expert meeting on 22 September 2014 concerning the use of armed drones.

We have no plans to respond in writing to the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism dated 28 February 2014. However, the United Kingdom was represented at the UN Human Rights Council expert meeting on 22 September, where we once again set out our position on the legality of Remotely Piloted Air Systems.

15th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department has taken to tackle offences of child abuse on St Helena.

Territory Governments have the principal responsibility for ensure the safeguarding of children in the Overseas Territories, for which the UK provides practical assistance and support. DFID and the FCO have been supporting child safeguarding initiatives in the OT’s for the last nine years, most recently through the Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2013-2016), which followed on from an earlier SCOT programme (2009-2013) and a regional Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008). Although tangible progress was made in earlier programmes to raise awareness and build capacity, the new programme will focus on gaining a deeper understanding of the problem including how to detect, prevent and address child abuse.

In St Helena, the SCOT programme has helped encourage revised and updated legislation to protect children, established professional protocols and procedures for those involved in child services, improved the provision of training for St Helena officials, and helped to promote local ownership of the safeguarding agenda. Support has been provided to St Helena through a Lucy Faithfull Foundation review (2013) and technical expertise to take forward a robust child safeguarding action plan arising from review recommendations.

The FCO and DFID have been working closely with the UK police who have investigated reports into child sex abuse of St Helena and continue to do so.

15th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information the Governor of St Helena has received about allegations of child abuse and police corruption in that territory since May 2010; when that information was received; and what steps the Governor took in response to that information.

The Governor and the elected government of St Helena take very seriously any allegations of child abuse and police corruption. All allegations are investigated and where evidence is available those responsible are dealt with according to the law. There have been numerous successful prosecutions over the period in question with substantial sentences awarded to those convicted of an offence.

15th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the opening of the airport on St Helena does not lead to the development of child sex tourism in that territory.

Safeguarding children in St Helena is a critical priority for the St Helena Government and the UK. Whilst Territory Governments have the principal responsibility for ensure the safeguarding of children in the Overseas Territories, the UK provides practical assistance and support. DFID and the FCO have been supporting child safeguarding initiatives in the OT’s for the last nine years, most recently through the Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2013-2016), which followed on from an earlier SCOT programme (2009-2013) and a regional Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008). This new programme will focus on gaining a deeper understanding of the problem including how to detect, prevent and address child abuse.

Following recent further allegations relating to child abuse in St Helena, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs agreed to establish an independent panel of experts to investigate these specific allegations and related matters. In response to these allegations the island’s Executive Council said: “We have taken great steps on St Helena to protect our children and vulnerable people against abuse of any kind. We know that there are concerns, as there are in any community, but solid progress has been made in improving our safeguarding capabilities. We know there is still more to do, and we will continue to strive for further improvements

13th Jan 2015
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the (a) UK total managed expenditure in nominal sterling, (b) gross domestic product in nominal sterling and (c) percentage total managed expenditure is expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product; and what the reasons are for the variances from the Public Expenditure Statistical analysis published by his Department in 2014.

All these data are available from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s databank, including the Office for National Statistics outturn data (published 22nd November 2014) and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s independent forecast (consistent with the Economic and Fiscal Outlook December 2014 and the Autumn Statement 2014).

  1. UK Total Managed Expenditure in nominal sterling.

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

TME outturn (£bn)

680.6

700.9

701.2

717.9

719.9

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

TME forecast (£bn)

737.1

746.2

746.7

751.3

765.3

779.9

  1. Gross Domestic Product in nominal sterling.

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Nominal GDP outturn (£bn)

1501.7

1,576.2

1,628.5

1,663.2

1,733.0

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

Nominal GDP forecast (£bn)

1,822.0

1,888.0

1,956.0

2,038.0

2,124.0

2,215.0

  1. Total Managed Expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product.

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

TME outturn (%GDP)

45.3

44.5

43.1

43.2

41.5

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

TME forecast (%GDP)

40.5

39.5

38.2

36.9

36.0

35.2

Variances when comparing the most up to date figures set out above against the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis (command paper) are due to these figures including the latest outturn data, incorporating the latest forecast judgement by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the latest classification changes made by the Office for National Statistics.

Since the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis was published in July 2014 the Office for Budget Responsibility has published their latest forecast in their December 2014 Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Office for National Statistics regularly update outturn, at a various points in the year, for total managed expenditure and gross domestic product.

2nd Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when responsibility for secure institutions for children, including approved schools, transferred away from the Home Office to other Government departments; and to which other departments and bodies that responsibility was transferred.

On 29 March 2007 in a Written Ministerial Statement the Prime Minister announced a Machinery of Government Change whereby the transfer of a number of policy areas would take place from the Home Office to a new Ministry of Justice. This included the transfer of the National Offender Management Service, including the Prison and Probation Services, on 9th May 2007. Incorporated in this change was the policy relating to the secure estate for young offenders.

Section 46 of the Children and Young Persons act 1969 contains provision for the cessation of approved schools as a consequence of the establishment of community homes. The responsibility for approved schools was transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security in 1971 and, in 1973, under a number of orders made under powers in section 46 above approved schools ceased to operate in 1973.

20th Oct 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will indicate what constraints there are on publication of case papers, inquiries or other documents relating to the Birmingham Pub Bombings on 21 November 1974.

While the investigation by West Midlands Police into this appalling and devastating crime remains open it would not be appropriate for the police to grant access to their files.

15th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what visits by UK police officers in an official capacity to St Helena have taken place since May 2010; what the purpose and cost was of each such visit; and whether the full costs of each visit were met by her Department.

Under Section 26 of the Police Act (1996), the Home Office has authorised three deployments of UK police officers to St Helena to provide advice to the St Helena Police: two in 2010 and a third in 2013. The Home Office does not hold details on the costs of these deployments which are a matter for the relevant UK police force facilitating the visit, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the authorities in St Helena.

16th Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when and by what process a decision will be made on whether to reduce the number of elections held for Birmingham City Council.

I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement of 9 December, Official Report, Column 27-29WS. We intend to change the electoral cycle of Birmingham City Council to all out elections. We intend to do this by making the appropriate Order under the Local Government Act 2000.

18th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date, (c) period of committal and (d) court was of each court order issued by courts in Manchester for contempt of court since November 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Manchester County Court, High Court sitting at Manchester and Manchester Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified one case where a committal orders was made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnor may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.

Court

Judge

Date

Period

Manchester County Court

HHJ Kushner QC

12/12/14

6 months

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Manchester Crown Court or Manchester Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.

18th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date, (c) period of committal and (d) court was of each court order issued by courts in Leeds for contempt of court since November 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Leeds County Court, High Court sitting at Leeds and Leeds Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Leeds Crown Court or Leeds Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.

18th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date, (c) period of committal and (d) court was of each court order issued by courts in Sheffield for contempt of court since November 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Sheffield County Court, High Court sitting at Sheffield and Sheffield Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Sheffield Crown Court or Sheffield Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.

18th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date, (c) period of committal and (d) court was of each court order issued by courts in Bristol for contempt of court since November 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Bristol County Court, High Court sitting at Bristol and Bristol Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS has identified cases where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnors may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.

Court

Judge

Date

Period

Bristol County Court

Deputy District Judge Paddison

27/11/14

4 weeks

Bristol County Court

Deputy District Judge Hall

5/12/14

12 weeks

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Bristol Crown Court or Bristol Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.

18th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will publish the number of licence recalls activated during the (a) licence and (b) supervision period for the Community Rehabilitation Company service in Birmingham, Yardley constituency.

Statistics on offenders recalled and returned to custody are published quarterly in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) bulletin. In accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics dates for future releases of this bulletin have been pre-announced in the Department’s statistical publication schedule. This is available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/statistics

As part of the latest release of OMSQ, my Department published a consultation document and set of statistical tables proposing how this information on recalls could be presented in the future. These new tables aim to ensure that the changes this Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme have made in this area can be monitored. These documents are available online at the link below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2014

The proposed set of statistical tables do not currently include a separate breakdown for recalls by Community Rehabilitation Companies activated during the licence period and supervision period. I have asked my officials to consider this request, alongside other consultation responses, as they develop the final tables that will be included with the next edition of Offender Management Statistics Quarterly which is due to be published on 30 April 2015.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
27th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Services's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date, (c) period of committal and (d) court was of each court order issued by courts in England and Wales for contempt of court since 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

In order to identify all cases where a contempt of court occurred in every Crown Court centre, County Court centre, Family Court centre, magistrates’ court and the Royal Courts of Justice, HMCTS would have to manually check daily records for each courtroom at every court centre for the 14 months from January 2014 to February 2015. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
25th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many courtrooms there are in (a) the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, (b) the County Court in Birmingham, (c) the Family Court in Birmingham and (d) the High Court in Birmingham.

The Royal Courts of Justice has 122 court rooms which are available for use by the High Court. The Birmingham Civil Justice Centre has 56 court rooms available for use by the High Court, family court and the county court. The use of a courtroom for any particular case will be a matter for listing and the judiciary.

20th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer on 12 February 2015 to Question 223311, what calculations were made to determine that to answer the original question would incur disproportionate costs.

In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.

HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.

Court

Judge

Date

Period

Birmingham High Court

HHJ Purle QC

13-2-15

6 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Rich TD

7-11-14

8 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

19-11-14

16 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

15-1-15

18 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

15-1-15

25 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Ingram

30-1-15

24 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Shorthose

13-2-15

26 weeks


20th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the contribution by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire of 18 March 2014, Official Report, column 625 and pursuant to the Answer of 26 January 2015 to Question 217723, how many (a) ex-parte non-molestation orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men, (b) with notice non-molestation orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men, (c) non-molestation orders were applied for by each firm of solicitors, (d) non-molestation orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men by each judge, (e) ex-parte occupancy orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men, (f) with notice occupancy orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men, (g) occupancy orders were applied for by each firm of solicitors, (h) occupancy orders were given to (i) women and (ii) men by each judge in each quarter from the first quarter of 2011 to the third quarter of 2014 in courts in (A) Sussex and (B) the West Midlands.

Details of the gender of those receiving non molestation orders (ex-parte and with notice), and occupancy orders (ex-parte and with notice) since 2011 can only be obtained by manually checking every case file at disproportionate costs.

Figures requested for non molestation and occupancy orders applied for by each firm of solicitors in courts in a) Sussex and b) West Midlands are available and provided as extracted from the central MoJ database on family cases, in the accompanying tables.

Domestic violence and abuse is unacceptable and no one should have to experience it. It is right that the family court has the power to take swift action to protect families and children from domestic abuse. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust and in each case the court will make a decision whether to make an order based on the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant and of any relevant child.

20th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date and (c) period of committal was of each court order issued by (i) Birmingham County Court, (ii) Birmingham High Court and (iii) Birmingham Family Court for contempt of court since November 2014.

In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.

HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.

Court

Judge

Date

Period

Birmingham High Court

HHJ Purle QC

13-2-15

6 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Rich TD

7-11-14

8 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

19-11-14

16 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

15-1-15

18 weeks

Birmingham County Court

HHJ McKenna

15-1-15

25 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Ingram

30-1-15

24 weeks

Birmingham County Court

DJ Shorthose

13-2-15

26 weeks


4th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date and (c) period of committal was of each court order issued by the High Court to the Prison Service for contempt of court since November 2014.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:

Division

Judge

Date

Period

Queens Bench

HHJ Seymour

20-11-14

3 Months

Chancery

Justice Asplin

2-2-15

3 Months

However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.

4th Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter sent on 2 February 2015 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley by HM Courts and Tribunals Service's Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team, what the (a) name of the judge, (b) date and (c) period of committal was of each court order issued by (i) Birmingham County Court, (ii) Birmingham High Court and (iii) Birmingham Family Court for contempt of court since May 2013.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:

Division

Judge

Date

Period

Queens Bench

HHJ Seymour

20-11-14

3 Months

Chancery

Justice Asplin

2-2-15

3 Months

However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.

8th Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the contribution by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire of 18 March 2014, Official Report, column 625, what progress has been made by his Department's investigation into reasons for increases in the number of non-molestation orders issued by the English courts.

Non-molestation orders are an important form of protection for those suffering or at risk of domestic violence. Legal aid funds applications, regardless of the applicant’s means. We accept current orders, or those made in the previous 24 months as the evidence required to access legal aid in private family law matters.

The MoJ keeps the impacts of legal aid reforms under review. While it is true that the number of non-molestation orders applied for through the courts has increased since implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, published data does not support the position that this is due to such orders being a form of acceptable evidence of domestic violence required to access legal aid funding in private family law child or finance arrangement matters. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust.

The Ministry of Justice has commissioned an extensive research programme to investigate individual behavioural responses following the legal aid reforms. This will provide robust findings on the prevalence of social and civil justice problems and the ways in which people resolve these problems both within and outside of the justice system. Findings from this programme are expected in Autumn 2015.

17th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases of imprisonment for contempt of court in January 2014 there has been no published judgment on Bailii.

We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and are grateful to the President of the Family Division for his ongoing work on this issue. On contempt, the Guidance issued in 2013 by the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Family Division made clear that contempt decisions must be announced in public. Where a hearing for committal is exceptionally held in private, the judge must set out the reasons for doing so in public. Judgments are posted on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s website. Information on the courts who commit people to prison for contempt is already collected and recorded where supplied, and this guidance will result in greater consistency in the information which can be collected. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on cases of imprisonment for contempt of court where there has been no published judgment on BAILII. BAILII is not a Government publication.

17th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to take steps to implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 48, subsection iv of 2014 EWCA Civ 1477.

We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and are grateful to the President of the Family Division for his ongoing work on this issue. On contempt, the Guidance issued in 2013 by the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Family Division made clear that contempt decisions must be announced in public. Where a hearing for committal is exceptionally held in private, the judge must set out the reasons for doing so in public. Judgments are posted on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s website. Information on the courts who commit people to prison for contempt is already collected and recorded where supplied, and this guidance will result in greater consistency in the information which can be collected. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on cases of imprisonment for contempt of court where there has been no published judgment on BAILII. BAILII is not a Government publication.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were imprisoned for contempt of court before each division of the legal system in each month since May 2013.

The table below sets out the number of people who were received into custody for contempt of court between May 2013 and March 2014 (the latest available figures). Contempt of court covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of justice.

Receptions into prison (1) for contempt of court, May 2013-March 2014, England and Wales

May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13

Contempt of Court 11 8 13 14 7 12

Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14

7 6 8 7 8

(1) This excludes imprisonment in court cells and police cells

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.