Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the current law permitting mentally competent adults to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment has ever been proven inadequate in the courts to protect vulnerable people from being pressured to end their life prematurely.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
We have not seen evidence from the courts that the current provisions permitting mentally competent adults to refuse life-sustaining treatment provide inadequate protection for vulnerable people.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to implement the recommendation of the UN Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that the National Preventive Mechanism be placed on a legislative basis.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
In 2009, the UK Government established the UK’s independent National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) which currently comprises 21 inspection, visiting and monitoring bodies covering detention places across the UK. The UK continues to comply with its international obligations under the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, under which the NPM was established.
We note the sub-committee on Prevention of Torture’s recommendation, and we continue to explore with the NPM how it may be addressed.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of recent research from the UK's Assisted Dying Coalition, published on 8 February, which found that more than one person a week now travels from the UK to Switzerland to end their life; and in light of that research, whether they plan to review the UK's assisted dying law.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
It remains the Government’s view that any change to the law in this area in England and Wales is an issue of conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than one for Government policy.
Parliament has not so far voted to legalise assisted suicide in any circumstances.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the removal of non-asylum immigration cases from the scope of legal aid on young migrants with limited leave to remain.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Government is currently undertaking a post-implementation review of the impact of the legal aid changes made under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. An assessment of the impact of recent changes to the provision of legal aid for non-asylum immigration cases will be made as part of the review process.
We have recently announced our intention to amend the scope of legal aid for unaccompanied and separated migrant children. This scope change will be informed by evidence gathered as a result of the review and delivered with the help of a consultative group.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of local councils, if any, refusing to give ashes to families after public health funerals; and what is their response to reports of such practices.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Government has not made any such estimate.
In line with the regulatory framework for cremation, ashes would normally be returned to the cremation applicant, which in the case of a public health cremation would be the local authority. However, it is open to the local authority to pass the ashes to any family or friends who come forward, and we would expect this to happen whenever possible.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of individuals pursuing appeals in (1) the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and (2) the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), did not have representation, for each year, since December 2012.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The proportions of individuals pursuing appeals that did not have representation are:
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
(1) the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | 25% | 21% | 21% | 20% |
(2) the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | 12% | 12% | 10% | 10% |
The data are based on the number of disposals recorded as not represented and are reported in calendar years.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 8 November (HL2645) about appeals made by litigants in person, when they stopped recording those figures, and why.
Answered by Lord Henley
In the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) an appellant can be represented by any person not prohibited from doing so by section 84 of the Immigration Act 1999.
Therefore management information does not cover whether a person had legal representation, as requested in HL2645.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of individuals pursuing appeals in (1) the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and (2) the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), did not have legal representation and appeared as litigants in person in the last year for which figures are available.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, with regard to increasing fees in the civil court, what attempts were made (1) prior to 1 April 2013, and (2) after 1 April 2013, to measure the impact of the plans.
Answered by Lord Faulks
Both before and after 1 April 2013 the Ministry of Justice used, and continues to use, HMCTS management information to measure court fee income including court fee remissions. Impact assessments have been and will be published to accompany proposed court fee reforms.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times magistrates have issued warrants to utility companies permitting the forcible installation of prepayment meters in the homes of their customers in each year since 2002–03.
Answered by Lord Faulks
Utility companies apply for warrants of entry to magistrates' courts. When the application is heard the outcome is recorded on the court register. They are not recorded or collated centrally so this question could only be answered by manually inspecting records at each magistrates' court, which would incur disproportionate costs.