Category: Speeches

  • Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2014-04-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the number of people with (a) two, (b) three, (c) four and (d) five or more jobs; and how many of such people’s total earnings do not meet the lower earnings threshold.

    Mr David Gauke

    Estimates of the number of (a) people and (b) women who work in more than one job but do not pay national insurance, even though their total earnings are above the lower earnings threshold; and, of those, how many are women, are available at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-coverage-lower-earnings-limit-and-multiple-jobs

    The rest of the information requested is not available.

    “

  • Gloria De Piero – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Gloria De Piero – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gloria De Piero on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) appeals and (b) successful appeals against Atos assessments in (i) Nottingham and (ii) Ashfield constituency there were in each of the last three years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The First-tier Tribunal – Social Security and Child Support (SSCS), administered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) decisions on a range of benefits including a person’s entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

    Whilst a work capability assessment (WCA) can be a key factor in an ESA decision, it is not the only consideration. Appeals are brought against ESA refusals, and not WCA decisions themselves. The Tribunal does not record information on those ESA appeals in which the WCA decision is a factor, and as such HMCTS does not hold the specific information requested.

    Information on appeals against ESA decisions is published by HMCTS in Tribunal Statistics Quarterly. The most recent report for the period January to March 2014, published on 12 June 2014, can be viewed at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2014.

  • Lyn Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lyn Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lyn Brown on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many planning applications made by betting shops have been rejected by local authorities and subsequently overturned by the Planning Ispectorate in (a) Newham and (b) the UK in each year since 2008.

    Nick Boles

    We hold information for England; information for other parts of the UK is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

    The table below sets out the number of planning appeals on betting shops decided by the Planning Inspectorate in England in each year since 2008.

    Decision Year

    Allowed

    Dismissed

    Total

    2008

    13

    9

    22

    2009

    9

    11

    20

    2010

    10

    7

    17

    2011

    18

    9

    27

    2012

    4

    10

    14

    2013

    8

    10

    18

    There is no clear trend, other than fewer appeals being allowed in the last two years, and I would note that the numbers involved are small. Any planning application or appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits in light of the prevailing local circumstances and planning policies.

    During this period, three appeals relating to the London Borough of Newham in 2011 were allowed involving changes to A2 use.

    The detailed reasoning for the approvals were outlined in the three decision letters, but it may assist the hon. Member to note that (a) one case involved an application which had been rejected on grounds it was a move to a non-retail use, yet the inspector noted that the premises had been operating as a non-retail use for over 40 years, (b) another had been rejected on similar grounds, yet there was already an extant planning permission for the premises to change to a non-retail use, and (c) the other was since the premises was changing from an amusement arcade and was already in use for a form of gambling.

    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is undertaking a broader review of gambling policy. This Government is taking action to support healthy and vibrant local high streets. This is part of a wider set of measures designed to get empty and redundant buildings back into productive use and make it easier for valued town centre businesses like shops, banks and cafés to open new premises, while giving councils greater powers to tackle the harm to local amenity caused by a concentration of particular uses.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2014-06-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution on the human rights situation in North Korea, following the findings of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry; and if so, whether they will sponsor such a Resolution if it appears to face resistance from Russia or China.

    Baroness Warsi

    The UK believes strongly that there should be no impunity for serious international crimes, such as those which the Commission of Inquiry found are being committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). We played an active role in ensuring a strong DPRK resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council, including a call for the UN General Assembly to submit the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the UN Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action. In April we and other Security Council members took part in a public “Arria” briefing by the Commission. This was the first time the Security Council had considered DPRK human rights in this way. We also raised the need for a continued focus on human rights during a UN Security Council Sanctions Committee meeting in May.

    On June 18 the Minister of State, my Rt Hon Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), visited Geneva, where he took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. Mr Swire also raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn’s UN General Assembly (UNGA) session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.

    We will keep the prospect of a UNSC Resolution under review.

  • 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 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate he has made of the number of combined heat and power plans delivering more than 10 per cent of input energy as heat output.

    Gregory Barker

    In 2013, the Government reviewed the minimum performance standards for renewable Combined Heat and Power (CHP) set in our Quality Assurance programme. As set out in the Government response, approximately 70% of solid and liquid renewable fuel CHP schemes already certified to Combined Heat and Power Quality and Assurance (CHPQA) deliver more than 10% of their input energy as useful heat output.

    No similar assessment has been made for fossil fuel CHPs.

  • Baroness Taylor of Bolton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Baroness Taylor of Bolton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Taylor of Bolton on 2014-06-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many category A and category B prisoners are currently being held in category C or category D prisons.

    Lord Faulks

    All prisoners are assessed as to their risk of escape or abscond, and their risk of harm to the public should they escape or abscond, which ensures allocation of prisoners to a prison providing appropriate levels of security. Only those prisoners categorised as C would be held in a category C prison and only those considered suitable would be held in category D open conditions.

    Those same procedures ensure that category A and B prisoners are not allocated to category C or D prisons and that all prisoners are held in an establishment of at least the security category to which they have been assigned.

    Prisoners re-categorised to a higher category would be held in the prison’s Segregation Unit until such time as they could be moved to more appropriate accommodation.

  • Douglas Alexander – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Douglas Alexander – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Alexander on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Cabinet Secretary was tasked with assessing whether there were gounds for a further inquiry into the events surrounding the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

    Mr William Hague

    The Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood’s investigation looked at why the UK provided advice to the Indian authorities, the nature of the UK assistance and the impact of that assistance in Operation Blue Star at the Golden Temple. As I told Parliament in my statement to the House on 4 February 2014, Official Report, columns 139-142, the report and the documents we published clearly show the limited nature of UK advice on Operation Blue Star, and that there were no grounds for a further inquiry.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2014-06-16.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the detailed breakdown of the £7,250,000 so far incurred by the special administration process in relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

    Earl Howe

    The £7,250,000 incurred by the special administration process at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust relates to the period when the trust special administrators (TSAs) were appointed in April 2013, to the point at which the Secretary of State announced his decision to accept the TSAs’ proposals in February 2014.

    We are informed by Monitor that the total figure of £7,250,000 can be broadly broken down as follows:

    – Cost of the TSAs and supporting team to run the Trust – £2,000,000;

    – Cost of solution development – £3,600,000; and

    – Cost of stakeholder engagement and consultation – £1,650,000.

    Monitor has estimated the total cost of the special administration process will be £12 to £15 million. This was first announced as part of its decision to accept the TSAs’ final proposals on 16 January 2104 and re-stated in an announcement on 13 March 2014. This includes the £7,250,000 and £250,000 expenses incurred up to the point of the Secretary of State’s decision.

    The remainder of the estimated total cost consists of costs incurred in the period leading up to the dissolution of the trust. These are the cost of continuing to employ a team to run the trust, and the cost of implementing the recommendations set out in the TSAs’ Final Report.

    We are also informed by Monitor that an original budget for the remaining costs was agreed at approximately £7,000,000.

    That total figure of £7,000,000 can be broadly broken down as follows:

    – Cost of the TSAs and supporting team to run the Trust – £1,500,000;

    – Cost of delivering the transaction – £2,100,000; and

    – Cost of splitting the Trust – £3,400,000.

    The team running the trust will be required to remain in place up to the point at which the trust is dissolved.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2014-04-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her future plans are for support to the Caribbean.

    Mr Alan Duncan

    The UK is strongly committed to supporting development in the Caribbean. Helping the region tackle the risks posed by natural disasters is one of our top priorities, alongside supporting sustainable economic growth and addressing governance and security.

    The UK Government has increased its bilateral support to the Independent Caribbean by 50 percent (around £75 million in 2011 to 2015). We also make significant contributions though multilateral partners, for example providing 15 per cent of the EU’s €1.4 billion support and 19 per cent of the Caribbean Development Bank’s Special Development Fund. Our funding runs until March 2015. We are currently reviewing our approach in the Independent Caribbean to ensure that the UK’s support responds to the countries’ needs and delivers the greatest positive impact in the next phase of support from 2015/16 onwards.

    In addition, the UK provides assistance to the Overseas Territory of Monserrat by financing public services and investing in infrastructure. We are making these investments to facilitate economic growth and reduce long-term dependence on aid.

  • The Countess of Mar – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The Countess of Mar – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2014-06-16.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether patients have the legal right to be referred to any hospital provider of their choice, no matter where the consultant is located in England, subject to the provisos listed on the NHS website under Choosing your Hospital; whether patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy in Sussex and elsewhere have been denied the opportunity to do so by local clinical commissioning groups when their general practitioners request a referral; and, if so, why.

    Earl Howe

    The 2014-15 Choice Framework and the NHS Constitution, both available on .gov.uk, set out when patients have legal rights to choice.

    The NHS Constitution states that patients have the rightto make choices about the services commissioned by National Health Service bodies and to information to support these choices.

    The 2014-15 NHS Choice Framework establishes that if a patient needs to see a consultant or specialist as an outpatient for a physical or mental health condition, they can choose the organisation that provides their NHS care and treatment anywhere in England for their first outpatient appointment. They can also choose which consultant-led team or which mental health team led by a named health care professional will be in charge of their NHS care and treatment for their first outpatient appointment.

    The organisation can be any clinically appropriate health service provider with whom any clinical commissioning group or NHS England has a commissioning contract for the service required as a result of the referral, but the team must be clinically appropriate and led by a named consultant or health professional who is employed or engaged by that health service provider.

    There are also times that patients are not able to make a choice, and these are outlined in the Choice Framework and the Handbook to the NHS Constitution. For example, patients can only choose a hospital or clinic that offers the right treatment and care for their condition. Furthermore, if patients need urgent or emergency treatment, they cannot choose who they see.

    If a patient, who is not covered by the exemptions, has not been offered choice, or denied the opportunity to exercise choice by a clinical commissioning group, the 2014-15 Choice Framework sets out a clear complaints procedure.