Tag: 2014

  • 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.

  • Lord Bradshaw – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Bradshaw – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bradshaw on 2014-04-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they will take to facilitate connections between the Cambrian Line and the train services provided from Porthmadog Harbour Station on the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland railways in order to support the tourist industry.

    Baroness Kramer

    The Cambrian Line is part of the Wales and Borders franchise operated by Arriva Trains Wales. The specification and day-to-day management of the franchise is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.

  • 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.

  • Liam Byrne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Liam Byrne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Liam Byrne on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether recent increases in the estimated RAB rate for student loans go beyond his Department’s target impairment for student loans.

    Mr David Willetts

    This Department does not set a target for impairment of student loans. Our reforms were designed to put higher education on a sustainable footing. Universities are now well-funded and this is driving up the quality of the student experience and helping to stimulate economic growth, while keeping access to higher education free at the point of entry.

  • 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.

  • Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison Seabeck on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many staff employed within the land-focused business of the Defence Support Group will be (a) within and (b) without the scope of the sale.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    At the moment we expect all 1,973 permanent staff members employed within the land-focused Defence Support Group business to be included within the scope of sale and transferred to the new owner under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The final assessment will take place closer to the time of the actual sale.

  • 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.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the terms of reference are for the inquiry led by Mark Ellison QC announced on 6 March 2014 into whether undercover police officers caused miscarriages of justice; whether Mr Ellison will be given access to all documentation from Operation Herne for his review; whether members of the public will be able to give evidence to Mr Ellison during his review; and whether the review will cover cases involving the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.

    Damian Green

    The scope and terms of reference for this review are being determined. My Rt. Hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear in her statement to the House on 6 March 2014, Official Report, column 1063 that "Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence".

  • Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Fuller on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will review the level of the debt threshold for a creditor bankruptcy petition.

    Jenny Willott

    We plan to review the debt threshold for a creditor bankruptcy petition this year.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the ratio of prison officers to inmates by gender was in each (a) prison establishment and (b) category of prison in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

    Jeremy Wright

    Information on the ratio of prisoners to prison officers has been provided previously to the hon. Member for Tooting, Sadiq Khan. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 Mar 2014, Official Report, Column 805W.

    It is not possible to calculate a meaningful ratio of prisoners to staff based on gender. Any officer to prisoner ratio must take account of all available staffing, of either gender, in order to realistically represent the level of staffing.