Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to section 4 of the Asylum accommodation support transformation: policy equality statement, updated by his Department on 8 September 2020, when the Asylum Accommodation and Support Transformation project was established; and what monitoring mechanisms are in place to help ensure accommodation providers are considering and understanding the (a) protected characteristics and (b) other specific needs of people in their accommodation.
Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
The Asylum Accommodation and Support Services Contracts (AASC) Statement of Requirements below gives a detailed breakdown of all of the services to be undertaken by our accommodation providers and to the standards we expect. This includes expectations on accommodation providers, recognising protected characteristics and ensuring individual’s specific needs are met. Full details of our polices: AASC_-_Schedule_2_-_Statement_of_Requirements.pdf (parliament.uk).
The AIRE (Advice, Issue Reporting & Eligibility) service has also introduced more independent and transparent oversight of standards through clearer complaints mechanisms for asylum seekers and supporting data that allows more intelligent targeting of performance improvement. The Home Office also employ a dedicated contract assurance team whose core activity scrutinising the providers’ monthly performance is one of three main strands of work, the other two being property inspections and assurance reviews.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will update the HM Prison and Probation Service Strategy for Care-Experienced People to include a specific focus on race.
Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We are updating our strategy for people with care experience in the criminal justice system, to ensure we are using care-experienced people’s time in the criminal justice system to support them to lead crime-free lives.
This will include a focus on race and its role in shaping the experiences and outcomes of those with care experience in the criminal justice system, and will link to wider departmental efforts to address racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system.
We are aiming to publish this strategy later this year.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to her Department's consultation on the statutory levy on gambling operators, published on 17 October 2023, whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of setting a statutory levy rate of one percent for remote pools betting.
Answered by Stuart Andrew - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
Higher rates of problem gambling are associated with certain products, particularly those online, compared to most land-based products. We want to take this into account in the design of the statutory levy, as well as the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. Public Health England’s evidence review of gambling-related harms, based on Health Survey data, showed football pools to have a 'problem gambling' rate of 5%, which is higher than the population level which has been at or below 1% for the past 20 years.
The consultation on the design of the statutory levy opened on 17 October and has now closed. Our consultation specifically invited views on the question of levy rates so that the Government has the best available evidence to inform our final policy decisions on a structure of the levy. The Government is carefully considering the evidence received, and we will publish our response to the consultation in due course.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the Crown Prosecution Service report of 29 September 2023, Crown Prosecution Service Joint Enterprise Pilot 2023: Data Analysis, whether joint enterprise applies where persons unintentionally assist or encourage another to commit a crime.
Answered by Robert Courts - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
Joint enterprise is a common law doctrine, meaning that it has developed over time through case law rather than being set out in statute.
The doctrine may apply where two or more persons are involved in committing a criminal offence.
Where joint enterprise applies, the secondary party or accessory will be liable for the offence if they encourage or assist the commission of the offence by the principal party, and they intend to encourage or assist the commission of the offence.
The secondary party will not therefore be liable if they do not intend to encourage or assist the commission of the offence.
The outcomes of the Joint Enterprise pilot were published on 29 September 2023 and will inform the Crown Prosecution Service's national monitoring scheme of joint enterprise cases.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to section 3c of the Asylum accommodation support transformation: policy equality statement, updated by his Department on 8 September 2020, what steps his Department is taking to ensure Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts (a) tackle prejudice and (b) foster good relations between LGBTQI+ people and others accommodated in hotels; what reports asylum accommodation providers have provided on the experiences of their LGBTQI+ service users; what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that asylum accommodation providers are (i) proactive in monitoring and identifying specific needs or risks and (ii) taking appropriate measures to respond; and what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that accommodation providers are not accommodating people identified as having specific needs or being at risk in the same sleeping quarters as other unrelated service users.
Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
We expect high standards from all of our providers, and we have a robust governance framework in place to manage service delivery of the Asylum Accommodation Support Contracts (AASC). Further details can be found at: AASC_-_Schedule_2_-_Statement_of_Requirements.pdf.
Section G.2 of the AASC provides examples of factors which accommodation providers should consider as part of their case-by-case assessment of an individual’s needs in room sharing, including whether they identify as LGBTQ+. This aligns with the allocation of accommodation policy which sets out that the circumstances of every person in asylum accommodation should be assessed individually. Where an individual need or safeguarding concern exists, accommodation may be provided to meet such need.
The AIRE (Advice, Issue Reporting & Eligibility) service has also introduced more independent and transparent oversight of standards through clearer complaints mechanisms for asylum seekers and supporting data that allows more intelligent targeting of performance improvement.
Additionally, the Home Office has published the Asylum Support Contracts Safeguarding Framework at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-support-contracts-safeguarding-framework. This framework sets out a joint, overarching approach, as well as the key controls and reporting mechanisms in place, across the AASC contracts, for safeguarding arrangements. All asylum seekers have access to a 24/7 AIRE (Advice, Issue Reporting and Eligibility) service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services, and they can get information about how to obtain further support.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the article entitled Mink farming poses risks for future viral pandemics published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 19 July 2023.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Government shares the British public’s high regard for animal welfare. Fur farming has been banned in England and Wales since 2000 (2002 in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Fur farming is legal in some countries and cases of infection with influenza A viruses of avian origin and SARS-CoV-2 have been confirmed in farmed mink in these countries in recent years.
Therefore, we remain vigilant and continue to use our established systems to monitor for new and emerging animal health risks through our Veterinary Risk Group and Animal Disease Policy Group and for public health risks through the Human Animal Infections and Risk Surveillance group. We have published a risk assessment on the transmission from animals to humans of influenza of avian origin and SARS-CoV-2 in Mustelidae population.
International collaboration and knowledge exchange on animal health risks including zoonotic pathogens is facilitated through discussions between the UK Chief Veterinary Officer and representatives from the UK’s network of national and international reference laboratories, and their counterparts in the EU and globally through the World Organisation for Animal Health and allied projects. Including through the joint WOAH-FOA Scientific Network on animal influenza OFFLU.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the number of people who have been convicted of an offence under joint enterprise where the jury were not directed as to any significant contribution to that offence since 2016.
Answered by Laura Farris - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Ministry of Justice) (jointly with Home Office)
The Ministry of Justice only collects information on how many defendants are prosecuted and convicted for each offence in any given year. Currently, information is not collated on whether that prosecution or conviction relied on the law of joint enterprise. Such information may be held on court records but could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to discourage banks regulated in the UK from supporting businesses which receive income from industrial livestock companies contributing to deforestation.
Answered by Bim Afolami - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government is committed to working with UK financial institutions to further tackle deforestation-linked finance.
On 9 December at COP28 Nature Day, the Government announced the next steps on the Forest Risk Commodities Scheme which will be introduced through provisions under the Environment Act 2021. This new due diligence legislation will see businesses that have a global annual turnover of over £50 million and use over 500 tonnes of regulated commodities a year banned from using them if sourced from land used illegally.
As set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, HM Treasury will also conduct a review to assess if the financial regulatory framework is adequate for the purpose of eliminating the financing of illegal deforestation, and to consider what changes to the regulatory framework may be appropriate.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will make an assessment of the potential impact of including working parents subject to the No recourse to public funds condition in the extended 30 hours childcare offer for three- and four-year-olds on (a) maternal and (b) parental participation in the labour force.
Answered by David Johnston - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
This government is making the largest investment in childcare in England’s history. By the 2027/28 financial year, the government will expect to be spending in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education. It will provide hard working parents 30 hours of free childcare per week (38 weeks per year) for children aged 9 months to until they start school. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever.
The department does not hold data on the numbers of 3- and 4-year-old children who are not eligible for 30 hours because their parents have no recourse to public funds, and what proportion of those children have British citizenship.
The expanded working parent entitlement, which will be rolled out in phases from April 2024, will be available to working parents who meet the eligibility criteria. These will be the same as the current 30 hours offer for 3- and 4-year-olds.
The free childcare entitlements for the children of working parents are not within the definition of ’public funds’ in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or the Immigration Rules. However, there are requirements in the Childcare (Free of Charge for Working Parents) (England) Regulations 2022 for the parent, or one of the parents, not to be subject to immigration control. This means that where both parents have no recourse to public funds, they will not be eligible for the entitlements. However, if there are two parents and just one of them is subject to immigration control the family will still be eligible for the entitlements, provided they meet the other conditions.
Parents with no recourse to public funds are, however, able to access the 15 hours free early education entitlement available for all 3 and 4-year-olds and, if eligible, 15 hours free early education for disadvantaged 2-year-olds. In September 2022, the department extended eligibility for the 2-year-old entitlement to disadvantaged families who have no recourse to public funds. This is because these entitlements are intended to support children's development and help prepare them for school.
The government has no current plans to extend the free childcare entitlements offer for working parents to families with no recourse to public funds.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool, Riverside)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if her Department will make an assessment of the potential merits of amending the eligibility criteria for the extended 30 hours childcare offer for three and four year-olds to migrant parents with any immigration status who are resident in the UK, have the right to work and who work the requisite number of hours.
Answered by David Johnston - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
This government is making the largest investment in childcare in England’s history. By the 2027/28 financial year, the government will expect to be spending in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education. It will provide hard working parents 30 hours of free childcare per week (38 weeks per year) for children aged 9 months to until they start school. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever.
The department does not hold data on the numbers of 3- and 4-year-old children who are not eligible for 30 hours because their parents have no recourse to public funds, and what proportion of those children have British citizenship.
The expanded working parent entitlement, which will be rolled out in phases from April 2024, will be available to working parents who meet the eligibility criteria. These will be the same as the current 30 hours offer for 3- and 4-year-olds.
The free childcare entitlements for the children of working parents are not within the definition of ’public funds’ in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or the Immigration Rules. However, there are requirements in the Childcare (Free of Charge for Working Parents) (England) Regulations 2022 for the parent, or one of the parents, not to be subject to immigration control. This means that where both parents have no recourse to public funds, they will not be eligible for the entitlements. However, if there are two parents and just one of them is subject to immigration control the family will still be eligible for the entitlements, provided they meet the other conditions.
Parents with no recourse to public funds are, however, able to access the 15 hours free early education entitlement available for all 3 and 4-year-olds and, if eligible, 15 hours free early education for disadvantaged 2-year-olds. In September 2022, the department extended eligibility for the 2-year-old entitlement to disadvantaged families who have no recourse to public funds. This is because these entitlements are intended to support children's development and help prepare them for school.
The government has no current plans to extend the free childcare entitlements offer for working parents to families with no recourse to public funds.