Author: admin

  • Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lexden on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether sales of school playing fields are increasing; and if so, whether they will take steps to curb such sales.

    Lord Nash

    Local authorities and schools must by law seek consent from the Secretary of State to dispose of playing field land. The department has a strong policy presumption against the disposal of school playing fields and only provides consent to dispose of playing field land if the criteria set out in the departmental guidance are met; which includes an expectation that proceeds from sales are reinvested in sports and education facilities. The department publishes a list of department decisions on applications for consent to dispose of school playing field land.

    It would neither be practical or desirable to artificially curb the sale of school playing fields, when such disposals may represent the most effective use of public assets. Often changes are made to education provision, such as school closures or mergers, which mean it is no longer necessary to retain playing fields for school use. In such cases it is only right that local communities are able to benefit from space that otherwise would not be used. Converting surplus or unwanted assets to invest in school grounds has benefits that extend far beyond the school gates. No operating school has disposed of its entire playing field.

    It is therefore right that schools should continue to determine what is suitable for their individual circumstances; subject to strong statutory protections including the Secretary of State’s consent and the application of rigorous criteria for what is best for pupils’ education and wider school and community life.

  • Lord Porter of Spalding – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Porter of Spalding – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Porter of Spalding on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding has been allocated to local authorities to support unaccompanied children being resettled in the UK beyond 31 March 2017.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    In July 2016, we increased the national rate of funding to local authorities taking responsibility for unaccompanied asylum seeking children, from £34,675 to £41,610 a year for those aged under 16 and from £25,915 to £33,215 a year for those aged 16 or 17. We will keep these arrangements under review.

  • Lord Rennard – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Rennard – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rennard on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 20 October (HL Deb, col 2484–90), whether the Pharmacy Integration Fund is still planned to rise to a total of £300 million by 2020–21, and whether the planned expenditure of £42 million over two years means that previously planned support is being cut back.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    In 2016/17, it was planned that £20 million would be available for the Pharmacy Integration Fund (PhIF), rising by £20 million per year to a total of £100 million per year by 2020/21, so that over the course of 5 years, £300 million would be distributed through the Fund.

    The establishment of the Fund and associated work programme for 2016/17 is dependent on the overall financial pressures for NHS England, set out in the Five Year Forward View, and the priorities identified through the recently published National Health Service planning guidance.

    This means through the business planning process, funding of £42 million has now been secured for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

    There will be further business planning within NHS England for 2018 onwards which will determine the future provision within the Fund. However, the PhIF is a key priority for NHS England and is aligned with the Five Year Forward View priorities.

  • Lord Rennard – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Rennard – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rennard on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 20 October (HL Deb, col 2484–90), how much of the Pharmacy Access Fund will come from existing funds to support community pharmacies, and how much of the Pharmacy Access Fund will be additional money to support community pharmacies.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Pharmacy Access Scheme (PhAS) will be paid for from the funding for the community pharmacy contractual framework. The PhAS will be an additional monthly payment, made to all small and medium sized pharmacies that are a mile or more from another pharmacy. The PhAS has been designed to capture the pharmacies that are most important for patient access, specifically those pharmacies where patient and public access would be materially affected should they close. The PhAS takes isolation and need levels into account.

    The scheme also includes a review process, and reviews of eligibility will also be granted for pharmacies that may have narrowly missed out on the scheme through the distance criteria, but are in areas of high deprivation. This will cover pharmacies that are located in the top 20% most deprived areas in England, and are located 0.8 miles or more from another pharmacy. Additional funding for successful reviews under this criterion will be made available as required.

  • Lord Vinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Lord Vinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Vinson on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider introducing the national interest test for mergers and acquisitions that was part of the brief of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the brief of the Competition and Markets Authority.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    As we build an economy that works for all, the Government will keep the law on mergers and acquisitions under review.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 September (HL1842), whether any of the soldiers who fought in Musa Qala in 2006 were considered for medals within the timescale of the five-year rule.

    Earl Howe

    The Ministry of Defence does not retain unsuccessful recommendations for Military Honours and Awards. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain whether any Service personnel who fought in Musa Qala in 2006 were recommended for an award outside of the five-year rule.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 16 September (HL1580), which organisations will deliver the new Desistance and Disengagement Programme; and whether the programme targets terrorist groups other than those related to Islamic extremism.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    Delivery of the Desistance and Disengagement Pilot Programme will be led by the Home Office in conjunction with key stakeholders and other Governmental Departments.

    The Home Office will work alongside experienced practitioners and non-governmental organisations to deliver a suite of mentoring, psychological and theological interventions.

    The pilot programme will focus on those convicted of all terrorism, or terrorism related offences, who have served their custodial sentences and are due to be released on licence. It is therefore not limited to Islamist extremists.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 16 September (HL1580), whether they plan to run a similar programme for Islamic extremists still in prison.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    In line with the former Prime Minister’s commitment, we are currently considering how the Desistance and Disengagement programme can best be introduced within the prison estate.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 15 September (HL1768), and in the light of the need to maintain compliance with EU law until the UK leaves the EU, what steps they are taking now to ensure that once the UK has left the EU they are ready to move quickly to a new drugs and treatment approval regime.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government is now working to understand, in full, the implications of withdrawing from the European Union (EU) and to develop a future approach to medicines regulation. The Government will ensure that the United Kingdom’s approval regime is ready and operational as soon as the UK has formally departed the EU.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 25 July (HL1283), and in the light of the need to maintain compliance with EU law until the UK leaves the EU, what plans they have to discuss with NHS Trusts the introduction of new rotas for doctors which, following the UK’s departure from the EU, would exceed the current hours prescribed by the Working Time Directive.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The new rotas being introduced as part of the new contract for doctors in training include contractual limits on working hours that are stronger than those prescribed in the Working Time Directive. The contract limits weekly average hours to 48, and it places a cap of 72 hours on the number of hours that can be worked in any one week, compared to 91 hours under the Directive. It also reduces the number of consecutive nights and consecutive long days that doctors in training can work, compared to the current arrangements. Trusts are contractually obliged to observe these limits, regardless of the Working Time limits. Robust arrangements are in place to ensure this happens, with Guardians of Safe Working Hours in each trust. Trusts will be fined if junior doctors miss more than 25% of their designated meal breaks, work more than an average of 48 hours a week over 17 weeks or work more than the 72 hours limit in any one week.

    Negotiations on a new contract for consultants have included a similar focus on safe working hours and limits. Discussions have been constructive and are continuing.