Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many successful prosecutions have taken place under the Coronavirus Act 2020 as a result of court proceedings.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The main criminal offence under the Coronavirus Act relates to potentially infectious persons who refuse to co-operate with the police or public health officers, when they are required to be screened for COVID-19.
There have been no successful prosecutions of any offence created by the Coronavirus Act 2020. A review of completed prosecutions to the end of August 2020 show that 141 cases were incorrectly charged under the Act; because there was no evidence they applied to potentially infectious people, which is what this law covers.
However, data on prosecutions under the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 shows that under the Regulations there have been 227 prosecutions resulting in guilty pleas, and 6 prosecutions found guilty after trial to the end of August. Data released by the National Police Chiefs Council also shows that 18,912 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued under the Regulations between 27 March and 21 September by police forces across England and Wales.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many deaths of individuals under the age of 65 have been attributed to COVID-19 since 1 February; and of those, how many of those individuals did not have comorbidities.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. I have therefore asked the Authority to respond.
Dear Lord Robathan,
As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking how many deaths of individuals under the age of 65 have been attributed to COVID-19 since 1 February; and of those, how many of those individuals did not have comorbidities (HL8386).
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for publishing mortality statistics for deaths registered in England and Wales. The most recent year for which mortality statistics are available is 2019 however we do publish provisional statistics for weekly death registrations which are currently published for deaths registered up to 11 September 2020. National Records Scotland (NRS) and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) are responsible for publishing the number of deaths registered in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
Cause of death is defined using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th edition (ICD-10). Deaths involving COVID-19, defined as either as a contributory or underlying cause of death are identified by the ICD-10 codes U07.1 and U07.2.
The most recent weekly deaths data, based on date of registration, shows that there were 5,550 deaths involving COVID-19 registered for individuals under the age of 65 between 1 February and 11 September 2020.
The latest data available on deaths involving COVID-19 by age group and pre-existing conditions was published in ‘Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales: deaths occurring in June 2020’. These figures are based on the date of occurrence rather than date of registration. These data show that there were 5,364 deaths involving COVID-19 that occurred between March and June 2020 to individuals under the age of 65. Of these, 772 (14.4%) did not have a pre-existing condition.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many NHS (1) doctors, (2) nurses, and (3) other workers, aged (a) 18–24, (b) 25–29, (c) 30–34, (d) 35–39, (e) 40 or more, years old have (i) contracted, and (ii) died as a result of, COVID-19.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The Department does not hold the information on the number of National Health Service staff that have contracted or died as a result of COVID-19 in the format requested.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 27 July (HL6983), whether any military training establishments, specifically (1) Britannia Royal Naval School Dartmouth, (2) Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and (3) Royal Air Force College Cranwell, have confined all trainees to barracks due to concerns about COVID-19.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Britannia Royal Naval School Dartmouth has implemented COVID-19 control measures, including the operation of a restricted leave policy throughout COVID-19, to protect the Royal Navy's training output in line with its Defence commitments and above all, ensure a safe and secure COVID-19 training environment for its staff and trainees, following as far as practicable, PHE guidance at all times.
Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) - All Army recruits, including Officer Cadets at RMAS, have been confined to Army barracks at some stage during the HMG directed Covid-19 restricted movement period. Trainees and staff were released to travel home only for emergencies or in exceptional circumstances.
RAF College Cranwell - there have been no instances where all personnel at RAFC (Royal Air Force College) Cranwell have been confined to their personal accommodation due to concerns about COVID-19. During the peak of ‘lockdown’ all personnel accommodated at RAFC Cranwell were required to stay at the station, unless there were extenuating circumstances requiring weekend leave. The right to weekend leave was decided on an individual basis.
As lockdown restrictions have now eased, personnel are able to visit family and local community facilities, provided that the extant COVID-19 regulations are adhered to.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many serving personnel in the Armed Forces aged (1) 18–24, (2) 25–29, (3) 30–34, (4) 35–39, (5) 40 or more, years old have (a) contracted, and (b) died as a result of, COVID-19.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
As at 17 July 2020 (inclusive), 406 UK Armed Forces personnel had a positive COVID-19 infection test result entered into their medical record. Of which:
Two of these UK Armed Forces personnel with a positive COVID-19 infection test result subsequently died; both personnel were aged 40+ years.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy that Armed Forces personnel be confined to barracks during the COVID-19 pandemic; and if so, whether any such policy has applied to (1) personnel undergoing training at depots, schools, bases and officer training establishments, (2) directing staff at such training establishments, and (3) all trained personnel of whatever rank.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
It is not Defence policy that Armed Forces personnel be confined to barracks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The only occasions on which personnel may be confined to their accommodation are if they are self- or household-isolating, or if they are required to isolate for a short period prior to deployment.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures are in place to ensure that prisoners who may be considered jihadists or have links to similar terrorist organisations are kept segregated from prisoners who formerly served in the UK armed forces.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
All terrorist and extremist risk prisoners, including those with known links to terrorist organisations, are managed through a specialist case management process. This process enables us to assess the impact an individual or individuals are having on the stability of prisons and the risk they present to others, including particular groups that may be at risk such as former UK armed forces prisoners and staff.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the average number of calls that the Action Fraud helpline receives daily.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
This information is not held by the Home Office.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the level of online fraud in each year from 2015 to 2019; whether that level has increased; and if so, how any increase compares to the number of other reported crimes.
Answered by Earl of Courtown - Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. I have therefore asked the Authority to respond.
Professor Sir Ian Diamond | National Statistician
Rt Hon. the Lord Robathan
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
25 October 2019
Dear Lord Robathan,
As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the level of online fraud in each year from 2015 to 2019; whether that level increased and if so, how any increase compares to the number of other reported crimes (HL361).
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes figures on crime in England and Wales based on two main data sources: Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is face-to-face victimisation survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of a range of crimes, including fraud, in the 12 months prior to interview. Police recorded crime data for fraud offences incorporates information collated by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB).
The CSEW provides the best measure of fraud offences directly experienced by individuals in England and Wales. Online fraud are cases when the internet or any type of online activity was related to any aspect of the offence. Comparable data for this offence are only available from 2016 as victimisation questions on fraud are relatively new to the survey[1].
Table 1 sets out incidents of fraud and online fraud measured by CSEW from the year ending March 2017 to March 2019. There has been a 16% rise in online fraud (to 3.4 million offences) in the last year. However, the latest figure is at a similar level to that seen in the year ending March 2017. All CSEW crime excluding fraud and computer misuse showed no change over this period, despite some apparent fluctuation over the last two years.
The ONS also publishes quarterly data on individual crime types covering England and Wales with associated Appendix Tables[2]
Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond
Table 1: Incidents of fraud and online fraud, year ending March 2017 to March 2019 CSEW[3][4]
[1] See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information about the crime types included in this table. [2] Online Fraud represents fraud cases that were flagged as cyber because the internet or any type of online activity was related to any aspect of the offence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
[1] The victimisation questions on fraud and computer misuse were incorporated into the CSEW from October 2015. Up to September 2017 the questions were asked of half the survey sample. From October 2017 onwards the questions are being asked of a full survey sample.
[3] New victimisation questions on fraud and computer misuse were incorporated into the CSEW from October 2015. Up to September 2017 the questions were asked of half the survey sample. From October 2017 onwards the questions are being asked of a full survey sample.
[4] In March 2018 the new CSEW estimates on fraud and computer misuse were assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation against the Code of Practice for Statistics and were awarded National Statistics status.
[5] See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information about the crime types included in this table.
[6] Online Fraud represents fraud cases that were flagged as cyber because the internet or any type of online activity was related to any aspect of the offence.
Asked by: Lord Robathan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many medical examinations an applicant for the army is required to attend, broken down by (1) officers, and (2) other ranks; how long those examinations remain valid if passed; on how many occasions applicants have been required to attend (a) one, and (b) more than one, extra examination in the last three years; and what estimate they have made of the cost to the army of any extra examinations, including the issue of travel warrants to applicants.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
There is one physical medical examination for both officers and other ranks, Regular and Reserve (the Pre-Service Medical Assessment (PSMA)), the results of which remain valid for one year.
Over the last three full financial years, some 1,163 specialist opinions in addition to the PSMA have been sought. Of these, 23 have required another further appointment.
If an applicant is found to be medically unsuitable for service, they may appeal. As part of providing evidence for their appeal, they may wish to seek further medical advice. This would be at the personal cost of the applicant.
The Army estimates that around £156,000 has been spent over the last three full financial years on additional medical referrals, including travel.