Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to publish the consultation into mandatory reporting.
Answered by Karen Bradley
The Government will launch a full 12 week public consultation later this year.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of proposed changes to Tier 2 visas on the recruitment of people with specific skills from overseas to the video games industry.
Answered by James Brokenshire
The Government has commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to advise on restricting Tier 2 to genuine skills shortages and jobs which require highly-specialised experts, but with sufficient flexibility to include high value roles and key public service workers. There are 18 jobs in the video games industry currently included on the Shortage Occupation List.
The MAC is looking at selection criteria such as, but not limited to, salaries, particular attributes, economic need and skills level. The MAC is not due to report until December and we do not yet know what its findings and recommendations will be. We await the report with interest and will consider it carefully before making any significant changes to the Tier 2 route.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the communications of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.
Answered by John Hayes
The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.
As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.
The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.
It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what powers local authorities currently have to restrict the hours during which off-licences can sell alcohol; and whether the Government has plans to devolve further such powers to local authorities
Answered by Mike Penning
Licensing authorities have powers under the Licensing Act 2003 to restrict the hours in which alcohol is sold, if it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. Decisions are based on individual consideration of each premises application, as appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and in line with the licensing authority’s statement of licensing policy.
Early morning alcohol restriction orders (EMRO) allow a licensing authority to restrict the sale of alcohol between midnight and 6am. EMROs are designed to address recurring problems such as high levels of alcohol-related crime and disorder in specific areas at specific times; serious public nuisance; and other instances of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour which is not directly attributable to specific premises. Licensing authorities may decide to implement a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) where an exceptional number of licensed premises concentrated in one area have a cumulative impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives in that area. The CIP creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused or subject to certain limitations. The Government keeps these powers under review, but there are currently no plans to create additional new powers for licensing authorities.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, between what hours alcohol is not permitted to be sold from off-licences; and what plans to change such restrictions the Government has.
Answered by Mike Penning
The Licensing Act 2003 gives licensing authorities the power to make decisions regarding licensed opening hours.
Decisions are based on individual consideration of each premises application, as appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and in line with the licensing authority’s statement of licensing policy.
The Government has no plans to change this aspect of the alcohol licensing regime.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress Action Fraud has made on collating reports of linked ticket fraud.
Answered by Karen Bradley
Action Fraud is operated by the City of London Police, the national lead force for fraud. Crime reports received by Action Fraud are considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). For all types of fraud, the NFIB
analyses these reports to determine whether there is enough evidence to support an investigation, draws out links between cases, and sends out actionable intelligence packages for police forces to consider for enforcement action.
Action Fraud and the NFIB have developed and maintained strong engagement with many major event ticket providers. Work conducted in the run up to and during the Olympics and Commonwealth Games established a model of best practice which
is now in use.
Prior to events, Action Fraud and the NFIB, work with the event organisers to deliver greater awareness, through multiple channels, of the dangers of ticketing fraud. They also work with internet service providers to take disruption activity when fraud is identified in order to prevent further loss and work with law enforcement partners to take enforcement action where possible.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress she has made on reviewing the applicability of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to the use or commissioning of botnets in respect to the purchasing of event tickets.
Answered by Karen Bradley
Section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to supply
or obtain articles for use in offences under section 1 (unauthorised access
to computer material) or section 3 (unauthorised actions with intent to impair,
or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer etc.). For the
purposes of section 3A an article or tool could include a ‘botnet’. We keep
the Computer Misuse Act 1990 under constant review.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent discussions her Department has had with representatives of (a) primary ticketing agencies and (b) secondary ticketing platforms on enhancing the prevention and detection of (i) the use of botnets and (ii) ticket fraud.
Answered by Karen Bradley
Home Office Ministers and officials have had no meetings with primary ticketing
agencies or secondary ticketing platforms on this issue.
Ministers in the Home Office, Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have discussions and correspond
together on a wide range of issues, and this has included agreeing the content
of the Consumer Rights Bill. Officials from those Departments are in regular
contact, including regarding the issue of resale of tickets.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many members of her Department's executive board are (a) male and (b) female.
Answered by Karen Bradley
As at 31 March 2014, there were (a) 9 male and (b) 5 female members of the Home Office Supervisory Board.
As at 31 March 2014, the members of the Home Office Supervisory Board were (a) 36% white British and (b) 0% from any other ethnic background.
The remaining 64% of Home Office Supervisory Board members have not declared their ethnicity.
As at 31 March 2014, fewer than 5 Home Office Supervisory Board members declared a disability.
Data on ethnicity and disability has been reported and anonymised in line with the requirements of the Data Protection Act and in line with the Code of Practice for the UK Statistics Authority.
The racial or ethnic identity with which an individual chooses to identify is not self-evident. Information about the racial or ethnic background of an individual is sensitive personal data as defined by section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It would be inappropriate to disclose this information unless the individual concerned had given explicit consent or had taken steps to put the information in the public domain.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many members of her Department's executive board are (a) white British and (b) from any other ethnic background.
Answered by Karen Bradley
As at 31 March 2014, there were (a) 9 male and (b) 5 female members of the Home Office Supervisory Board.
As at 31 March 2014, the members of the Home Office Supervisory Board were (a) 36% white British and (b) 0% from any other ethnic background.
The remaining 64% of Home Office Supervisory Board members have not declared their ethnicity.
As at 31 March 2014, fewer than 5 Home Office Supervisory Board members declared a disability.
Data on ethnicity and disability has been reported and anonymised in line with the requirements of the Data Protection Act and in line with the Code of Practice for the UK Statistics Authority.
The racial or ethnic identity with which an individual chooses to identify is not self-evident. Information about the racial or ethnic background of an individual is sensitive personal data as defined by section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It would be inappropriate to disclose this information unless the individual concerned had given explicit consent or had taken steps to put the information in the public domain.