Author: admin

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the legal requirements to have a governing body for (1) a maintained school, and (2) an academy school, and whether a school of either kind can abolish its governing body.

    Lord Nash

    Section 19 of the Education Act 2002 requires every maintained school to have a governing body, constituted in accordance with regulations.

    Under the Academies Act 2010, an academy is a charitable company limited by guarantee and is therefore required under the Companies Act 2006 to have members and a board of trustees or directors.

    It is not possible for a maintained school to abolish its governing body or an academy trust to abolish its board of trustees, however, it is possible for a group of schools to be governed by one governing body or academy trust.

    When two or more maintained schools federate they operate under a single governing body, but each school remains a separate legal identity. In a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), individual academies do not have a separate legal identity and are all under the control of the trust board. Whether the board establishes local governing boards for each academy, and the range of functions delegated to any such boards, are both a matter for the board to determine – but in all cases the board remains accountable for the academies in the MAT.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many accredited diplomats from (1) Saudi Arabia, (2) the United Arab Emirates, (3) Kuwait, (4) Bahrain, (5) Qatar, (6) France, (7) Germany, (8) the Netherlands, and (9) the US, were resident in the UK on 1 January.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s records, the number of individuals resident in the UK on 1 January 2016 who were notified, with some form of diplomatic or consular status, to represent the following countries are:

    Saudi Arabia

    209

    The United Arab Emirates

    46

    Kuwait

    54

    Bahrain

    8

    Qatar

    15

    France

    196

    Germany

    138

    The Netherlands

    32

    The USA

    478

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures are followed when a foreign national resident in the UK not previously understood to be a diplomat claims diplomatic immunity.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 the sending State must make certain that the agrément of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as its head of mission (Article 4). The UK also requires sending States to submit the names of military, naval and air attaches for approval (Article 7). Diplomatic missions are further required to notify the receiving State of the arrival of all members of the mission (Article 10). If a foreign national resident in the UK claimed to be a diplomat, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) would check whether the person’s name was on its database of foreign diplomats and their families as notified to the FCO by the sending State. As necessary, the FCO would also confirm with the relevant diplomatic mission that the individual was a member of the mission’s staff.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many claims of diplomatic immunity were advanced in UK courts, or other legal procedures, between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2016; how many of those were successful; and of which states those successful and unsuccessful claimants were citizens.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    A number of claims of diplomatic immunity have been advanced through the UK courts. However, statistics and details are not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures are followed when a citizen of a foreign state claims diplomatic immunity as the representative of a third state.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Article 8(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 permits third country diplomats to be appointed to a diplomatic mission with the consent of the receiving State. Such appointments are rare, but the UK does accept them. If a third country national resident in the UK claimed to be a diplomat, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) would first check that the person’s name was on its database of foreign diplomats and their families. As necessary, the FCO would also confirm with the relevant diplomatic mission that the individual was a member of the mission’s staff.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2016 requests for diplomatic status or immunity were refused, and on what grounds.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    A small number of requests for diplomatic status or immunity from members of the public have been received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and subsequently refused. However, statistics and details are not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It is incumbent on the sending State to inform the FCO of the appointment of staff, including diplomats, to any of its missions in the UK. The FCO is not required to give explicit consent to such appointments, except in the case of heads of mission and military, naval and air attaches.

  • Lord Wasserman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Wasserman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wasserman on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have made to archive the public papers of Police and Crime Commissioners following the end of their terms in May 2016.

    Lord Bates

    It is the responsibility of the local Chief Executive in their role as Monitoring Officer and the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to make arrangements for the archiving of public papers following the end of their PCC’s term of office in May 2016.

  • Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on safe staffing levels for qualified nurses in the NHS and other health and care establishments subject to Care Quality Commission or Monitor inspections.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government is committed to supporting National Health Service trusts to put in place sustained safe staffing by using their resources as effectively as possible for patients.

    Hospitals should be able to demonstrate that they are able to ensure safe, quality care for patients and that they are making the best use of resources. This should take account of patient acuity and dependency, time of day and local factors. It is therefore important for providers to take a rounded view, looking at staffing in a flexible way which is focused on the quality of care, patient safety and efficiency rather than just numbers and ratios of staff.

    The responsibility for both safe staffing and efficiency rests, as it has always done, with provider Boards.

    Comprehensive lists of research commissioned and published, of criteria in all European Union countries, Australia and the United States, each of which have a variety of systems in operation, and of discussions held by United Kingdom officials to compare patient outcomes in those countries with outcomes in England, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    However, the 2013 National Quality Board (NQB) guidance on safe staffing issued in 2013 How to ensure the right people, with the right skills, are in the right place at the right time: A guide to nursing, midwifery and care staffing capacity and capability, referred to a number of sources of evidence on this issue. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) safe staffing guideline Safe staffing for nursing in adult inpatient wards in acute hospitals, July 2014 set out the evidence and expert papers, including international evidence, that was considered in preparing the guideline. A copy of the NQB guidance and the NICE guideline are attached.

    In addition, The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissions research evidence to improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health services through the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Current research of particular relevance to the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes and mortality includes:

    – a study on nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards; and

    – a study on the future of 24/7 care: investigating the links between staffing levels, patient access and inequalities in health outcomes.

    As announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July 2015, Dr Mike Durkin, National Director for Patient Safety, is working with the Chief Nursing Officer to complete the work started by NICE on safe staffing levels. Their work will draw on evidence and expert advice from England and internationally, and will be reviewed independently by NICE, the Chief Inspector of hospitals, and Sir Robert Francis to ensure it meets the high standards of care the NHS aspires to.

    The programme includes revision of the NQB 2013 guidance to take account of further developments in the evidence base, the need to look beyond acute settings, new models of care leading from the Five Year Forward View and the need for providers to secure both safe staffing and greater efficiency.

  • Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the evidential base to support their current policy on safe staffing levels for qualified nurses, and whether they will place a copy of that evidence in the Library of the House.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government is committed to supporting National Health Service trusts to put in place sustained safe staffing by using their resources as effectively as possible for patients.

    Hospitals should be able to demonstrate that they are able to ensure safe, quality care for patients and that they are making the best use of resources. This should take account of patient acuity and dependency, time of day and local factors. It is therefore important for providers to take a rounded view, looking at staffing in a flexible way which is focused on the quality of care, patient safety and efficiency rather than just numbers and ratios of staff.

    The responsibility for both safe staffing and efficiency rests, as it has always done, with provider Boards.

    Comprehensive lists of research commissioned and published, of criteria in all European Union countries, Australia and the United States, each of which have a variety of systems in operation, and of discussions held by United Kingdom officials to compare patient outcomes in those countries with outcomes in England, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    However, the 2013 National Quality Board (NQB) guidance on safe staffing issued in 2013 How to ensure the right people, with the right skills, are in the right place at the right time: A guide to nursing, midwifery and care staffing capacity and capability, referred to a number of sources of evidence on this issue. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) safe staffing guideline Safe staffing for nursing in adult inpatient wards in acute hospitals, July 2014 set out the evidence and expert papers, including international evidence, that was considered in preparing the guideline. A copy of the NQB guidance and the NICE guideline are attached.

    In addition, The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissions research evidence to improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health services through the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Current research of particular relevance to the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes and mortality includes:

    – a study on nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards; and

    – a study on the future of 24/7 care: investigating the links between staffing levels, patient access and inequalities in health outcomes.

    As announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July 2015, Dr Mike Durkin, National Director for Patient Safety, is working with the Chief Nursing Officer to complete the work started by NICE on safe staffing levels. Their work will draw on evidence and expert advice from England and internationally, and will be reviewed independently by NICE, the Chief Inspector of hospitals, and Sir Robert Francis to ensure it meets the high standards of care the NHS aspires to.

    The programme includes revision of the NQB 2013 guidance to take account of further developments in the evidence base, the need to look beyond acute settings, new models of care leading from the Five Year Forward View and the need for providers to secure both safe staffing and greater efficiency.

  • Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government  what are the criteria for safe staffing levels for qualified nurses in (1) EU countries, (2) the US, and (3) Australia, and what discussions UK officials have had about comparing patient outcomes in those countries with those in England.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government is committed to supporting National Health Service trusts to put in place sustained safe staffing by using their resources as effectively as possible for patients.

    Hospitals should be able to demonstrate that they are able to ensure safe, quality care for patients and that they are making the best use of resources. This should take account of patient acuity and dependency, time of day and local factors. It is therefore important for providers to take a rounded view, looking at staffing in a flexible way which is focused on the quality of care, patient safety and efficiency rather than just numbers and ratios of staff.

    The responsibility for both safe staffing and efficiency rests, as it has always done, with provider Boards.

    Comprehensive lists of research commissioned and published, of criteria in all European Union countries, Australia and the United States, each of which have a variety of systems in operation, and of discussions held by United Kingdom officials to compare patient outcomes in those countries with outcomes in England, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    However, the 2013 National Quality Board (NQB) guidance on safe staffing issued in 2013 How to ensure the right people, with the right skills, are in the right place at the right time: A guide to nursing, midwifery and care staffing capacity and capability, referred to a number of sources of evidence on this issue. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) safe staffing guideline Safe staffing for nursing in adult inpatient wards in acute hospitals, July 2014 set out the evidence and expert papers, including international evidence, that was considered in preparing the guideline. A copy of the NQB guidance and the NICE guideline are attached.

    In addition, The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissions research evidence to improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health services through the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Current research of particular relevance to the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes and mortality includes:

    – a study on nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards; and

    – a study on the future of 24/7 care: investigating the links between staffing levels, patient access and inequalities in health outcomes.

    As announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July 2015, Dr Mike Durkin, National Director for Patient Safety, is working with the Chief Nursing Officer to complete the work started by NICE on safe staffing levels. Their work will draw on evidence and expert advice from England and internationally, and will be reviewed independently by NICE, the Chief Inspector of hospitals, and Sir Robert Francis to ensure it meets the high standards of care the NHS aspires to.

    The programme includes revision of the NQB 2013 guidance to take account of further developments in the evidence base, the need to look beyond acute settings, new models of care leading from the Five Year Forward View and the need for providers to secure both safe staffing and greater efficiency.