Category: Speeches

  • Ian C. Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ian C. Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian C. Lucas on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if his Department will make a comparative assessment of rail links to (a) Cumbria and (b) North Wales from Manchester Airport.

    Andrew Jones

    We are aware that Arriva Trains Wales (ATW), and other operators, are seeking to operate additional services to Manchester Airport; however, capacity through central Manchester and at the Airport is limited, though infrastructure investment to deliver the Northern Hub (including the recently-opened fourth platform at the Airport) will improve this situation.

    Please note that it is the Independent Office of Road and Rail which is responsible for the allocation of train paths and not the Department, and it is therefore for the Office of Road and Rail to consider ATW’s application alongside other potential uses of the limited available capacity for additional rail services to/from Manchester Airport. Detailed information regarding these rail links is publicly available.

  • Lord Scriven – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Scriven – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to set up a commission to look at the question of the disestablishment of the Church of England, in the light of the communiqué from Anglican Primates about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The Government has no plans to set up such a commission.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the estimated difference between the current and original cost estimates of (a) locating the Sheffield High Speed 2 station in the city centre and (b) locating it in Meadowhall.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Analysis of the Sheffield City Region station options was published in the ‘Engineering options report; West Midlands to Leeds’ dated March 2012. This included analysis of several station sites around the city centre.

    The current estimated difference in cost between locating a High Speed station at Victoria and Meadowhall is £680m. Previous work on the cost of options at Victoria and other city centre sites are not comparable to the current estimate given above. With regards to the Meadowhall station, following the 2013 public consultation, no significant changes have been made to the original station design therefore there have not been any changes in cost.

    When recommending a station location HS2 Ltd. uses a number of criteria, including;

    1. engineering and construction feasibility;
    2. sustainability;
    3. demand considerations, including journey times;
    4. cost; and
    5. wider impacts

    Potential options were sifted by HS2 Ltd. according to these criteria. To support and challenge this approach, external stakeholders and advisors from the Department’s Project Representative Team were involved in reviewing the process and outcomes where appropriate. Further information about the appraisal process can be found in the 2012 ‘Options for phase two of the high speed rail network’ report and 2013 ‘Appraisal of Sustainability’ report. Both of these documents are available on the government website.

    Analysis undertaken by HS2 shows that the introduction of the Sheffield Meadowhall HS2 station could support up to 5,400 jobs and up to 300 residential units, while a HS2 station at Victoria could support an estimated 9,000 jobs and 900 housing units.

    Finally, I can confirm that Department for Transport officials have received a copy of Sheffield City Region’s study into connectivity for a city centre High Speed 2 station at Victoria which Network Rail was involved in.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what amounts have been paid to passengers under the Passenger’s Charter and Delay/Repay schemes in 2015-16 to date by each train operating company.

    Claire Perry

    We do not have confirmed figures for the train operating companies for the year to date. This information is confirmed to the Department at the end of the financial year and will then be published by the Department.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many UK applicants were rejected for a training place for new entrants to nursing in each of the last five years.

    Ben Gummer

    Health Education England (HEE) is responsible for workforce planning in the National Health Service and their recently published HEE commissioning and investment plan 16/17 forecasts an additional supply of 40,000 nurses by 2020. Moving new nursing students on to the student loans system in August 2017 will allow universities to offer up to a further 10,000 nursing, midwifery and allied health degree places by 2020/21.

    The HEE commissioning and investment plan 16/17 forecasts demands for additional nurses and midwives in the health and care sector in the next five years will rise by around 16,800.

    The Department does not collect data on the numbers of applicants who were not successful in gaining a nurse training place.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Margaret Ferrier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ferrier on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if the Government will hold an inquiry into regulation of non-print media.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    Ofcom is the independent body that regulates TV, radio and video on demand services. The Broadcasting Code contains rules those TV and radio broadcasters must follow. There are separate rules for video on demand services which include TV catch up, online film services and libraries of archive content. Government considers this regulatory system is working well and has no plans to hold an inquiry.

  • John Pugh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    John Pugh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Pugh on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the cost benefit ratio was of each major railway scheme authorised by the Government since 2010.

    Claire Perry

    Benefit Cost Ratios are calculated at many points in time during the lifecycle of a project including to inform a number of specific decision points. Due to changes in appraisal guidance benefit cost ratios calculated at different points in time may not be directly comparable.

    The benefit cost ratios for major rail projects with a value over £1bn and currently in delivery are set out in the table. These are based on the BCR at final business case stage or more recently published information where available. The benefit cost ratio of these and other rail schemes will have changed since these assessments were undertaken.

    Scheme

    Benefit Cost Ratio (excluding Wider Economic Impacts)

    Date of Appraisal

    Crossrail

    1.97

    Jul-11

    IEP

    2.7

    Jan-12

    Thameslink

    1.42

    Mar-13

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what consideration she has given to the UNHCR Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention when deciding to narrow the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Daniel Zeichner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2015-11-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect on the NHS of missed outpatient appointments due to (a) public transport and (b) other reasons.

    Jane Ellison

    The information requested is not held centrally and no assessment has been made.

  • John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the level of change of housing benefit for tenants in supported accommodation as a result of changes to housing benefit announced in the Autumn Statement 2015.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The introduction of Local Housing Allowance limits to social sector tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit will only apply from April 2018 where new tenancies have been taken out or renewed after April 2016.

    The Department is working on the exact policy design details for tenants in supported accommodation.