Author: admin

  • Jason McCartney – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jason McCartney – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jason McCartney on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the commissioning of homecare services by the NHS.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    It is important that patients, including those with cystic fibrosis, get those high cost drugs provided through homecare services on time.

    The Department commissioned a review of homecare medicine supply arrangements to ensure they deliver the best value for patients, the National Health Service and the provider market. The review report, Homecare Medicines: Towards a Vision for the Future, was published in December 2011 and is available at:

    http://media.dh.gov.uk/network/121/files/2011/12/111201-Homecare-Medicines-Towards-a-Vision-for-the-Future2.pdf

    The outcome of subsequent improvement work is summarised in the further report, Homecare Medicines: Towards a Vision for the Future – Taking Forward the Recommendations, published in May 2014 and available at:

    www.uhns.nhs.uk/AboutUs/NHSHomecareMedicinesinEngland.aspx

    NHS England issued a patient safety alert on minimising the risks of omitted and delayed medicines for patients receiving homecare services on 10 April 2014. This recommended that all healthcare organisations that commission clinical homecare services:

    – establish if medicine homecare services were used by their organisation and if incidents of omitted and delayed medicines had occurred;

    – consider whether immediate action needed to be taken locally and, if required, develop an action plan, to reduce risk and the potential risk to patients;

    – disseminate the alert to all medical, nursing, pharmacy and other staff involved in the care of homecare patients; and

    – report patient safety incidents concerning homecare to the National Reporting and Learning Service.

    A copy of the patient safety alert is available at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/psa-omitted-delayed-meds.pdf

    The Department continues to work with NHS England, homecare companies, pharmaceutical suppliers and the NHS to ensure that homecare arrangements are safe and deliver value for the NHS and improved outcomes for patients.

  • Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Greatrex on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to his Statement of 10 April 2014, Official Report, columns 24-25WS, on UK Coal Production Ltd, when the £10 million interest bearing loan to UK Coal will be complete.

    Michael Fallon

    I refer the hon. Member to the Written Statement I made today (“Update concerning UK Coal”) as Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

    As stated, I will continue to keep the House updated.

  • Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Greatrex on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the report, Merits of UK Coal State Aid Application submitted to his Department on 9 May 2014 by Orion Innovations.

    Michael Fallon

    I asked officials to review the report and discuss it with the author. This included a discussion on the background to the report and an explanation from Orion of the methodology and conclusions made in the report. Furthermore, they questioned the detail of the analysis, the robustness of the assumptions and areas for further development. Their conclusions are that the report is a high level analysis of the key issues and that it would require significant further work, diligence and validation of assumptions and contingency. It also requires enhancements to methodology, for example, to model the phasing of cash flows and include time value of money considerations and appropriate returns to capital. Orion has noted that the work was completed on a short timeframe and that they would be open to carrying out further work if a mandate could be agreed. On this basis, it is not possible to draw conclusions sufficient to inform any investment decision.

  • Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Greatrex on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment his Department has made of the conclusions of the Orion Innovations report entitled Merits of UK Coal State Aid Application, submitted to his Department on 9 May 2014.

    Michael Fallon

    I asked officials to review the report and discuss it with the author. This included a discussion on the background to the report and an explanation from Orion of the methodology and conclusions made in the report. Furthermore, they questioned the detail of the analysis, the robustness of the assumptions and areas for further development. Their conclusions are that the report is a high level analysis of the key issues and that it would require significant further work, diligence and validation of assumptions and contingency. It also requires enhancements to methodology, for example, to model the phasing of cash flows and include time value of money considerations and appropriate returns to capital. Orion has noted that the work was completed on a short timeframe and that they would be open to carrying out further work if a mandate could be agreed. On this basis, it is not possible to draw conclusions sufficient to inform any investment decision.

  • Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tom Greatrex – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Greatrex on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of passport applications submitted in each month since June 2010; and how many such applications were processed within three weeks of receipt.

    James Brokenshire

    The table below gives the requested information.

    Month

    Number of straightforward applications

    Number processed within 3 weeks

    Jan-13

    315,467

    315,424

    Feb-13

    368,035

    368,003

    Mar-13

    343,103

    343,097

    Apr-13

    384,487

    384,477

    May-13

    420,209

    420,204

    Jun-13

    421,757

    421,755

    Jul-13

    388,781

    388,770

    Aug-13

    285,055

    285,050

    Sep-13

    231,979

    231,971

    Oct-13

    207,083

    207,079

    Nov-13

    179,323

    179,312

    Dec-13

    115,461

    115,448

    Jan-14

    274,120

    274,097

    Feb-14

    360,087

    359,997

    Mar-14

    406,736

    406,517

    Apr-14

    416,591

    414,882

    May-14

    376,403

    347,256
  • Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Aidan Burley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to address any growth of a compensation culture in the UK.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The Government is committed to turning the tide on fraudulent personal injury claims, and we have introduced a raft of measures to discourage unnecessary or frivolous claims and tackle inflated costs. Most recently, I announced on 9 June (Column 27WS)a number of steps that the Government intends to take to reduce the volume of fraudulent claims. These include the power for courts to dismiss fundamentally dishonest claims and a ban on lawyers offering inducements to bring personal injury claims.

  • Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Aidan Burley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Aidan Burley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent assessment he has made of the current eligibility criteria for higher education maintenance loans.

    Mr David Willetts

    The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will continue to require students seeking maintenance loans to meet criteria includeing residency, type of course and place of study.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations his Department has received from (a) local authorities and (b) others on sanctions available to councils under the Localism Act 2011 where councillors have been found to have been in breach of the Code of Conduct under that Act.

    Brandon Lewis

    [Holding Reply: Thursday 12 June 2014]

    As stated in the impact assessment on the abolition of the Standards Board regime (published in January 2011), a post implementation review will be carried out three to five years after implementation of the policy which was in July 2012.

    My Department routinely receives representations about standards arrangements in local government, and indeed, on a whole range of local government issues. We will have regard to representations and comments when we undertake our post implementation review.

    However, Ministers are clear that the new provisions are a significant improvement on the old, discredited regime. The Localism Act has clarified predetermination rules allowing elected councillors to campaign and speak up on local issues. We have reversed the petty culture of malicious and unfounded complaints that wasted time and energy and undermined the good reputation of local government. We have increased transparency on councillors’ interests, and put in place criminal sanctions for the very rare instances of corruption. This is complemented by the role of political parties in ensuring good conduct, the law of libel, and the ultimate sanction: the ballot box.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what plans he has to carry out a post-implementation review of the local government standards framework in the Localism Act 2011.

    Brandon Lewis

    [Holding Reply: Thursday 12 June 2014]

    As stated in the impact assessment on the abolition of the Standards Board regime (published in January 2011), a post implementation review will be carried out three to five years after implementation of the policy which was in July 2012.

    My Department routinely receives representations about standards arrangements in local government, and indeed, on a whole range of local government issues. We will have regard to representations and comments when we undertake our post implementation review.

    However, Ministers are clear that the new provisions are a significant improvement on the old, discredited regime. The Localism Act has clarified predetermination rules allowing elected councillors to campaign and speak up on local issues. We have reversed the petty culture of malicious and unfounded complaints that wasted time and energy and undermined the good reputation of local government. We have increased transparency on councillors’ interests, and put in place criminal sanctions for the very rare instances of corruption. This is complemented by the role of political parties in ensuring good conduct, the law of libel, and the ultimate sanction: the ballot box.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations his Department has received on the effectiveness of the role of the Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011.

    Brandon Lewis

    [Holding Reply: Thursday 12 June 2014]

    As stated in the impact assessment on the abolition of the Standards Board regime (published in January 2011), a post implementation review will be carried out three to five years after implementation of the policy which was in July 2012.

    My Department routinely receives representations about standards arrangements in local government, and indeed, on a whole range of local government issues. We will have regard to representations and comments when we undertake our post implementation review.

    However, Ministers are clear that the new provisions are a significant improvement on the old, discredited regime. The Localism Act has clarified predetermination rules allowing elected councillors to campaign and speak up on local issues. We have reversed the petty culture of malicious and unfounded complaints that wasted time and energy and undermined the good reputation of local government. We have increased transparency on councillors’ interests, and put in place criminal sanctions for the very rare instances of corruption. This is complemented by the role of political parties in ensuring good conduct, the law of libel, and the ultimate sanction: the ballot box.