Author: admin

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if his Department, NHS England and NICE will publish work undertaken to analyse variation between areas in treatment for patients during the transition from the current Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) to proposed a new CDF scheme.

    George Freeman

    NHS England has advised that it plans to publish analyses of variation in use of Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) drug indications according to geographical areas in the spring of 2016 and then routinely in the future for the new CDF.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to reply to the letters dated 11 December 2015, 14 January and 10 February 2016 from the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner on port security and border controls; and if she will place a copy of her responses in the Library.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Secretary sent a response to the letters dated 11th December 2015 and 14th January 2016 on 22nd February 2016. She has not received a third letter. Responses will not be added to the library, this is not usual practice for private correspondence.

  • Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Smith on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were (a) granted and (b) refused on the basis of the results of the harm-benefit analysis carried out on those applications by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

    Karen Bradley

    I refer the Hon. Member to the response I previously provided to her question on 4 February 2016 (24508). The Home Office does not keep records of applications that have been rejected / refused or withdrawn at the concept or at the drafting stage.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what financial savings she expects to result from the transfer of processing Bangladeshi visa applications to New Delhi.

    James Brokenshire

    Decision making on UK visa applications lodged in Bangladesh was transferred from Dhaka to New Delhi in September 2014. Logistical changes like this are made for operational reasons and to refine the longstanding hub and spoke structure of the visa network, where applications are decided at regional decision making centres. The hub and spoke structure increases resilience, improves security and enhances decision quality. The overall customer experience is unchanged as applications can be submitted at the same visa application centres and continue to be decided within the same global customer service standard. As result of this transfer of work we also estimate a saving of around £0.6m per year.

  • Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jess Phillips on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, for what reason her Department cancelled Round Six of the UK Aid Match Fund; for what reason that cancellation was not announced earlier; for what reason that cancellation was not announced earlier; and what assessment she has made of the effect of that cancellation on charities who were developing proposals.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    The UKAid Match scheme has been a clear success in matching pound for pound public donations to charity appeals for projects changing lives in some of the poorest countries in the world. A sign of success is that some projects have substantially exceeded their fundraising targets. This has led to the programme’s full allocation of £120M being reached earlier than planned. DFID announced that there would not be a further funding round under the current programme as soon as it became clear that the budget had been fully allocated.

    The Government is committed to doubling UK Aid Match. This will provide further opportunities for charities who were developing proposals, including those intended for Round 6, to secure match funding for their appeals. Details of future funding opportunities will be set out in due course, including on the UK Government website.

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure children and families created via surrogacy are treated equally.

    Jane Ellison

    A search of the Department’s central correspondence system shows that the Department received 22 representations that made direct or indirect reference to the report `Surrogacy in the UK: Myth Busting and Reform’ since it was published in November 2015.

    The Government has no current plans to change the legislation in respect of surrogacy arrangements.

  • Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Holly Lynch on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to Question 18949, tabled by the hon. Member for Halifax on 7 December 2015.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    I can confirm that the answer to PQ 18949 was given on the 29th February 2016.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to paragraph 2.41 of the Government’s paper, The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union, published in February 2016, what contribution he expects UK environmental and energy safety regulators to make to the annual survey referred to.

    Anna Soubry

    The European Commission’s Annual Burden Survey will support the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness (REFIT) Programme of withdrawals, repeals and reviews of existing EU legislation.

    Anyone, including UK environmental and energy safety regulators, can now submit comments about any area of EU legislation to the Commission’s ‘Lighten the Load – Have Your Say!’ website*. Suggestions received will be analysed by the Commission and may subsequently be put forward for action via the REFIT Programme. The Government will use the REFIT Programme and the Annual Burden Survey to ensure that the EU meets its commitments to simplify legislation, avoid over-regulation and reduce burdens on business.

    * http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/democratic-change/better-regulation/feedback/index_en.htm

    “

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 15 February 2016 to Question 26406, how much is included in the Business Rate Retention Scheme funding stream to reflect the changes to the payment of Bus Service Operators Grant that were introduced in 2013.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Following the 2013 changes to the Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG) system, the Department no longer pays BSOG in respect of bus services in London. Instead, the amount that had previously been paid out under the BSOG scheme (some £90m in 2011/2012) was taken into account in determining the amount of funding received by the Greater London Authority under the Business Rate Retention Scheme introduced in 2013. This money is not ring-fenced and it is a matter for the Mayor to determine how it is spent.

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to maintain a strong commercial bus market in northern regions of the UK.

    Andrew Jones

    The forthcoming Buses Bill will provide local transport authorities, including those in the North, with a range of tools that will enable them to improve their bus services by introducing new franchising powers and stronger partnership arrangements, as well as a step change in the information available to passengers.

    The Government is also supporting bus services outside London – including in the North – with some £250 million a year of funding through the Bus Service Operators Grant system.