Blog

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why there are no targets in the NHS for follow-up appointments after an initial consultant consultation.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition. All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. NHS England’s guidance, Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At this point a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return. A copy of the guidance is attached.

  • Baroness Featherstone – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Baroness Featherstone – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Featherstone on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there exists a 10-year rule under which departmental papers and records may be destroyed, and if so, where that rule is set out.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    There is no ten year rule for the destruction of records created by ministers. Departments work to the guidance published by The National Archives on the appraisal and selection of official records which are retained and transferred for permanent preservation.

  • Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Berridge on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Yazidis have been given asylum in the UK under (1) the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme, (2) the Gateway Protection Programme, and (3) the Mandate Refugee Scheme, in the last six months.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    We continue to work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify appropriate cases that they deem in need of resettlement for the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, the Gateway Protection Programme and the Mandate Refugee Scheme.

    Statistics on arrivals under each of these schemes are published in the regular quarterly Immigration Statistics in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

    The next set of statistics will be in the quarterly release on 26 May 2016 and will cover the period January – March 2016. We do not publish a breakdown of these statistics by religion or ethnicity.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Chief Executive of the Water Regulator OFWAT was permitted to participate in a promotional video for the services of PwC, which is adviser to the Regulator both for PR14 and the Thames Tideway Tunnel, many of the UK water companies, and the owners of Thames Water, the sponsor for the Tideway Tunnel; and whether this is contrary to the Civil Service Management Code, clause 4.1.3.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    OFWAT’s Chief Executive took part in a digital case study describing the challenges of its 2014 price review (PR14) and the role of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) as the PR14 delivery partner, contracted through open competition, to bring new skills and knowledge to OFWAT’s workforce to help secure a successful outcome. The case study was produced after the PR14 programme had ended and reflected the conclusion from OFWAT’s ‘lessons learned’ exercise that the delivery partner arrangement had been successful.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Minute to Parliament describing the contingent liability with an indicative value of up to £500 million, as created by the Market Disruption Facility agreed and signed by the Secretary of State and Bazalgette Tunnel Limited on 24 August 2015 in connection with the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was published, in the light of the fact that the potential exposure of the public purse exceeds £300,000; and when a Minute to Parliament was published in respect of the further contingent liability created by the Secretary of State in connection with the same project through his agreement to the Contingent Equity Support Agreement, signed on the same day with the same party, in the light of the fact that the liability could be as great or greater than that in the Market Disruption Facility.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Defra did not submit departmental Minutes on the various limbs of the Government’s contingent financial support package for the Thames Tideway Tunnel because the Secretary of State has statutory authority to give financial assistance for major water or sewerage infrastructure projects under section 154B of the Water Industry Act 1991. This is consistent with the approach set out in HM Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, paragraph A5.4.21 & Box A5.4C.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their current initiatives on the use of tax havens and issues about the use of off-shore companies, what assessment they have made of the use by Thames Water of a Cayman Islands company to raise over £5 billion of debt, and of Thames Water being owned and controlled from Luxembourg.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not disclose details of its work on the affairs of particular taxpayers.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislative provision OFWAT is able to waive the need for a public procurement process for lawyers and financiers for the Thames Tideway Tunnel for services contracts with fees of open-ended value, in the light of the limit for services contracts under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 of £345,028.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The statutory provision is regulation 6(8) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582) ("the SIP Regulations"). This confers a power on Ofwat to waive the requirement imposed on a licensed infrastructure provider (being Tideway, in respect of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project) to put certain contracts out to tender under a modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 as set in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the SIP Regulations. Tideway is neither a contracting authority nor a utility within the meaning of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and so is not subject to the normal procurement rules.

    Following a public consultation, Ofwat issued two notices under this provision that waived Tideway’s obligation to comply with the modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations in certain limited and defined circumstances. The second notice issued by Ofwat provided Tideway with a narrow exemption for certain specified professional services relating to their financing and corporate arrangements, and only to the extent that those services will be paid for by its shareholders rather than customers.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why water customers are being required to pay for the financing and legal fees of the shareholders of the consortium, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd., which was awarded the licence for the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    A water and sewerage company’s management and investors are responsible for determining the company’s capital and financing structure. This is an important feature of the water industry as it encourages investment by enabling a company to put in place a structure that works for it. However, accountability for a water or sewerage company’s capital and financing structure rests with investors and not customers.

    Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd (trading as Tideway) is an infrastructure provider, appointed and licenced under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582). Any costs incurred by Tidewayand its shareholders for its financing and other corporate arrangements are prevented under their project licence from being met by customers and are instead borne by the shareholders. This includes costs incurred both before and after licence award in August 2015.

  • Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Barker on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice trans individuals are given about how to manage the accuracy and maintain the integrity of their data on the Department for Work and Pensions database.

    Lord Freud

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provides its staff with information about providing services for transgender customers but does not provide information relating to the management of data accuracy or maintenance of data integrity specifically for transgender customers. DWP have a Personal Information Charter which informs all customers of the standards they can expect when we handle their personal information.

  • Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Barker on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice the Department for Work and Pensions gives to trans individuals about how their confidentiality is maintained by that department on its database.

    Lord Freud

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provides its staff with information about providing services for transgender customers but does not provide information relating to data confidentiality specifically for transgender customers. DWP has a Personal Information Charter which informs all customers of the standards they can expect when we handle their personal information.

    The DWP Special Customer Records (SCR) policy provides additional controls to transgender customers. These additional controls include clerical records being held securely by a senior manager, and access to computer records only being allowed to specific employees for specific business reasons and automatic notification of any unauthorised attempt to access records.