UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • 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 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times project licence applications were referred to an independent assessor in each year since 2012.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Harm-Benefit Analysis (HBA) is undertaken, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors, all of whom are veterinary or medically qualified and trained in assessing research proposals. The HBA is the process of considering a research proposal to make a judgement whether the likely harms that the animals will experience are justified by the likely benefits. Under section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, inspectors advise the Secretary of State who decides whether and on what terms a project licence should be granted.

    The number of project licences which were recommended for grant by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors between 2012 and 2015 are shown in table 1, column (c).

    The Secretary of State has not rejected any of the recommendations for granting project licences made by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors between 2012 and 2015.

    The Home Office does not keep records of applications that have been rejected or withdrawn at the concept or drafting stage [24507]. The Home Office does not keep records of which applications were withdrawn as a result of advice from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors.

    The Home Office refers project licence applications to both the Animals in Science Committee and external independent assessors for critical review. The number of project licences referred to both is given in Table 1 columns (a) and (b) respectively for the years 2012-15.

    Year

    (a) Project licence applications referred to the Animals in Science Committee[1]

    (b) Project licence applications referred to independent assessors

    (c) Project licences granted

    2012

    9

    4

    626

    2013

    3

    0

    604

    2014

    4

    1

    474

    2015

    3

    0

    577

    [1] Prior to 2013 the independent advisory body was entitled the ‘Animals Procedures Committee’

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to prevent patient data being used for purposes other than direct care.

    George Freeman

    The Department takes protection of patient data very seriously. It is the role of the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) to ensure that high quality information is used appropriately to improve patient care. The organisation has legal powers to collect and analyse information from all providers of National Health Service care. It is committed, and legally bound to the very highest standards of privacy, security and confidentiality to ensure that patient confidential information is protected at all times. Access to information is strictly controlled. Under further safeguards introduced by the Care Act 2014, the HSCIC may only use its general dissemination powers for information where there is a clear purpose for the provision of health care or adult social care or the promotion of health.

    The Department has recently made considerable investment in conjunction with the HSCIC and strategic partners in order to create the Care Computer Emergency Response Team service (CareCERT).

    CareCERT was launched in September 2015 and exists to be a centre of excellence for Cyber Security advice and Security Incident Management.

    CareCERT has sent regular alerts and advisories to every NHS organisation and local authority on a range of Cyber Security issues. This specifically helps to protect patient data by ensuring health and care organisations are prepared and implement appropriate security technology to protect information.

    To improve health and social care services for everyone patient information is used for purposes beyond direct care, including for commissioning, public health, research and monitoring services. Commissioners need good information about the types of illnesses people have and the treatments they receive, as well as the result of that care or treatment so that they can commission the services that people need. Information also helps researchers to improve medicines and treatments for patients and to find better ways to prevent illness and treat conditions. Health and care information can also be used to identify who is most at risk of particular diseases and conditions.

    The NHS Constitution establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England. It sets out rights to which patients, public and staff are entitled, and pledges which the NHS is committed to achieve, together with responsibilities, which the public, patients and staff owe to one another to ensure that the NHS operates fairly and effectively. The NHS Constitution states that:

    ― You have the right of access to your own health records and to have any factual inaccuracies corrected.

    ― You have the right to privacy and confidentiality and to expect the NHS to keep your confidential information safe and secure.

    ― You have the right to be informed about how your information is used.

    ― You have the right to request that your confidential information is not used beyond your own care and treatment and to have your objections considered, and where your wishes cannot be followed, to be told the reasons including the legal basis.

    Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian, is taking forward an independent review to develop clear guidelines for the protection of personal data against which every NHS and care organisation will be held to account and will be recommending a new data security standards and a new consent or objections model for health and care information. The Independent Review is expected to report to the Secretary of State for Health shortly.

  • Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Maria Eagle on 2016-03-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to ensure that there is high-quality sixth form provision within the Knowsley Borough Council area.

    Nick Boles

    There are a range of institutions which provide high quality 16-19 provision, including Sixth Form Colleges and Further Education Colleges as well as school sixth forms.

    The Department for Education does not prescribe the exact balance of providers across a local area. Instead, it is crucial that we ensure that together the local provider base meets the needs of all young people in a local area with reasonable travel to learn distances. We are currently taking forward a series of area reviews which provide the opportunity to review post-16 provision with the aim of ensuring the provider base is strong and resilient.

    The decision about which schools should have sixth forms rests with schools themselves in partnership with key local stakeholders, including Regional Schools Commissioners and local authorities. A maintained school can apply to its local authority if it wishes to extend the age range of its school to add a sixth-form. We would expect this decision to take account of a range of factors including breadth of provision and local demand.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many clinical commissioning groups collect (a) prevalence and (b) standardised mortality data on autistic people as part of their joint strategic needs assessments.

    Alistair Burt

    Information is not collected centrally on how many clinical commissioning groups collect prevalence and standardised mortality data on autistic people as part of their joint strategic needs assessments.

    The National Health Service is taking action to reduce premature death among people with autism and a learning disability, and with autism by increasing annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, including for those who also have autism. The NHS is working to reduce variation and improve care for physical health conditions that disproportionately impact on people with learning disabilities who also may have autism, including epilepsy and cancer. NHS England has commissioned the world’s first Learning Disability Mortality Review Programme to support local areas to review deaths of people with learning disabilities and to use the information to improve service provision. This review programme for people with learning disabilities includes those who also have autism.

    Think Autism set out a clear, cross Government programme of action, developed alongside people with autism, their families and carers to improve their lives and reduce premature mortality through better access to healthcare by making adjustments to services. This includes supporting the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGPs) Autism Initiative to improve understanding of autism amongst GPs.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-26.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of corporation tax receipts from the digital economy sector in 2015-16.

    Mr David Gauke

    We cannot make an estimate of the corporation tax receipts from the digital economy.

    During the international work on corporate tax avoidance in the digital economy, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreed that the digital economy cannot be ringfenced for tax purposes. This is because it is becoming impossible to say what is and is not part of the digital economy, due to digital aspects permeating the economy as a whole.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-10-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the likely costs in administering changes to IR35 on public sector contracts; whether these costs will fall on public sector organisations; and what estimate his Department has made of the net gain to the Exchequer resulting from those changes.

    Jane Ellison

    Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has formally consulted with stakeholders, including a large number of public sector organisations on the impacts of the changes. The Government is analysing these responses and will respond in due course.

    Changes to off-payroll working in the public sector will make the engager responsible for deducting and paying associated tax and National Insurance where the intermediary rules apply. These changes will increase compliance with existing rules, rather than introducing a new tax liability. It is right that public sector bodies ensure that their workers are paying the correct amount of tax. At Budget this year, the Government published an estimate of the Exchequer yield as a result of these changes. This totalled around £550 million over the scorecard period, to 2021.

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

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much has been claimed in reimbursement expenses by press officers in (a) his Department and (b) his Department’s executive agencies and public bodies in each fiscal year since 2010-11.

    Jane Ellison

    The reimbursable expenses claimed by press officers in the Department in each fiscal year since 2010-11 are detailed in the table below:

    Financial Year

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15

    Department of Health

    £2,773.27

    £3,606.40

    £1,895.41

    £771.80

    £1,624.01

    The data covers reimbursable expenses claimed by the Department’s press officers for travel and subsistence.

    The expenses are reimbursed to staff in accordance with the Department’s policy, and will not include any rail or air tickets or hotel accommodation booked through the Department’s central booking.

    To collate the reimbursable expenses claimed by press officers in the Department’s executive agencies and public bodies in each fiscal year since 2010-11 is a disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Blunkett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Blunkett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blunkett on 2015-10-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the accident on the M1 on 12 October, how long it took the Highways Agency to reopen junction 25 on the southbound carriageways, and how far north diversions were put in place.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Highways England report that the incident occurred around 2:15 am, with the carriageway fully reopened by 9:25 pm. Diversions were initially put in place from junction 25 of the M1, with traffic diverted onto the A52 westbound, the A5111 southbound, the A6 southbound and the A50 eastbound, to re-join the M1 at junction 24. Unfortunately, there was a second incident on the slip road of the M1 at junction 25, resulting in a lane being closed. This meant the M1 closure was extended further north to junction 26 until this incident was cleared.

    Variable Message Signs were set prior to junction 38, in order to encourage drivers to divert via the A38. In addition, messages were displayed on the M62, A1(M), M18, A46, A52 and A38.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2015-12-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if he will hold discussions with regulators and consumer groups on ensuring that nuisance telephone calls (a) in general and (b) to elderly citizens are eliminated.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Government is cracking down on nuisance calls. Over the last five years the average fine issued has increased from around £5000 to £85000, we’ve strengthened the law to make it easier to clamp down on companies who break the rules and have increased the maximum fine to £500,000. DCMS Ministers and officials meet regularly with regulators and consumer groups to discuss the most effective approach to tackling this complex issue.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Law Society mental health panel accredited representatives there were on the Law Society panel available for First Tier Tribunal (mental health) hearings in each year since 2010.

    Caroline Dinenage

    This information is not recorded.