The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Howell on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the cost was to the NHS of paying doctors who had been excluded from practice on full pay in the most recent year for which figures are available.
Dr Daniel Poulter
This information is not collected centrally.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the average number of days taken by coroners to release the body of a homicide victim back to the family for burial in each year since 2010.
Simon Hughes
Information on the average number of days taken by coroners to release the body of a homicide victim is not held centrally. This information could only be obtained by inspection of individual case files at each coroner’s office before collating the information, and this could only be done at disproportionate cost.
In July 2013 we implemented reforms in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 together with new coroner regulations and rules aimed at improving standards and achieving greater consistency in coroner services. Regulation 20 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 requires a coroner to release the body for burial or cremation as soon as is reasonably practicable. Where this cannot be done within 28 days, the coroner must notify the next of kin or personal representative of the reason for the delay.
In February 2014 we also published the statutory “Guide to Coroner Services” which explains the standards of service that can be expected during a coroner’s investigation and what action can be taken if these are not met.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keir Starmer on 2015-10-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what increase there has been in the mitigation and compensation budget of High Speed 2 as a result of the greater impact of AP3 construction works on Camden residents and businesses in (a) intensity, (b) length of construction period and (c) need for temporary rehousing and secondary glazing.
Mr Robert Goodwill
The cost of mitigating the construction works impacts arising from changes to the hybrid Bill scheme for Euston introduced by AP3 and the budget for any additional statutory and discretionary compensation costs will be accommodated within the existing overall budget for Phase One of HS2.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2015-10-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to tackle homophobic bullying in universities.
Joseph Johnson
Homophobia has no place on a university campus, nor anywhere else. This is a serious matter where a zero tolerance approach is required. Universities are already tackling the issue through a range of initiatives, including working with expert organisations such as Stonewall.
Universities have duties through the Equality Act 2010 and in particular the Public Sector Equality Duty applies to publicly funded universities and requires them to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation of students on the grounds of sexual orientation. Institutions themselves are responsible for making sure that their policies and practice meet their legal duties.
However, more can be done. The Department is working with Universities UK, the body that represents universities, which has established a task force to explore what more can be done by universities to address harassment. The task force, which will involve the Department along with students and relevant sector bodies, will look at harassment in all its forms whether related to gender, religion and belief, sexual orientation or disability. Although it is for the task force to decide what the outcomes will be it is likely that the focus will be on practical actions to support universities to combat these issues and to safeguard students.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Murray on 2015-10-09.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will undertake and publish an impact assessment in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK for the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Damian Hinds
The Summer Budget offered a new deal for working people. It means Britain moving from a high welfare, high tax, low wage economy to a lower welfare, lower tax, higher wage society.
A new National Living Wage for workers aged 25 and above, initially set at £7.20 per hour from April 2016, will directly benefit 2.7 million low wage workers, and up to 6 million could see a pay rise as a result of a ripple effect up the earnings distribution. The new National Living Wage will boost pay for those currently earning the National Minimum Wage by £4,800 a year by 2020 when the National Living Wage is expected to rise to over £9 per hour.
To help working families keep more of what they earn, the personal allowance will increase to £11,000 in 2016-17 and £11,200 in 2017-18. The government has committed to increase the personal allowance to £12,500 by 2020 which will mean that a typical basic rate taxpayer will see their income tax cut by £1,205 a year compared to 2010.
The government set out its assessment of the impacts of the Summer Budget policies in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on 20th July 2015. Taken together, the introduction of the National Living Wage, increases in the personal allowance and welfare changes mean that 8 out of 10 working households will be better off as a result of the Summer Budget.
In response to a request from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the government has chosen to produce and release an impact assessment on the tax credit changes to the Committee. The impact assessment shows that 60% of the tax credit savings come from the half of tax credit claimants with the highest income.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what statistics his Department holds on the number of sick notes provided by jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance claimants which have been lost by Jobcentre Plus.
Priti Patel
The Department does not collect statistics on the number of fit notes reported as lost.
Claimants post their fit note into the Department or if it is urgent can hand it in at their local Jobcentre where staff are trained to update computer systems and arrange for benefit payments to be made if one is due.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2015-10-05.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they instructed local authorities not to disclose the contents of their submissions for the Comprehensive Spending Review; and, if so, why.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
Her Majesty’s Government has not instructed local authorities on the matter of disclosing the contents of their submissions for the Comprehensive Spending Review. Local authorities are free to publish the contents of their submissions and many have chosen to do so.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Falkner of Margravine on 2015-10-05.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent reports of creeping annexation of Georgian territory by Russia.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The UK continues to be concerned by ongoing reports of Russian supported borderisation (building fences and putting up “border” signs) along the Administrative Boundary Line with the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A recent example occurred in July 2015 when so-called border signs were moved closer to the South Ossetian Administrative Boundary Line. Regular reporting by the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia provides valuable updates on the constant, low-level borderisation process by Russian and South Ossetian personnel.
The UK has a clear policy of non recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s claims to independence, and recognises Georgia’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty over these two regions. We reject any actions which will increase tensions and the isolation in communities living along the Administrative Boundary Lines and call on Russia to fulfil all of its 2008 ceasefire commitments, including removing its troops from South Ossetia to pre-conflict positions.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno on 2015-09-17.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they define the term very significant obstacles”
Lord Bates
Paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules sets out the requirements for leave to remain on the basis of the applicant’s private life in the UK. Under paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi), where the applicant is aged 18 or over and has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (and whether or not they have done so for more than half their life), there must be “very significant obstacles” to the applicant’s integration into the country to which they would have to go if required to leave the UK. Guidance for caseworkers on this is contained in section 8.2.3.4 of the Immigration Directorate Instruction Appendix FM 1.0b Family Life (as a Partner or Parent) and Private Life: 10-Year Routes, published on GOV.UK.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Sharkey on 2015-10-05.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, before withdrawing supplementary funding for the highly specialist work carried out at tertiary and teaching hospitals in England, they carried out an impact assessment of the effects of such a withdrawal on medical research; if not, why they did not do so; and if so, whether they will publish that assessment.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The supplementary funding, known as Project Diamond funding, was provided by the former London Strategic Health Authority in recognition of arguments made by providers about the higher costs of tertiary and teaching hospitals both for research and service provision. The research component was subsequently taken on by the Department, and the service component was taken on by NHS England.
In the case of research funding, the Department’s view is that the approach to funding already recognises the higher costs of providing services. For example, a large part of funding is bids based. In bidding for research funding, providers will have taken into account all the costs they face. Any supplementary funding would be double-counting costs. Consequently the Department does not expect an impact on medical research from withdrawing funding as existing funding streams should meet all costs.
In the case of funding for specialised services to patients, 2014/15 was the final year of supplementary funding provided by NHS England. Refinements to the National Tariff are being made, including the introduction of HRG4+, that make a significant improvement in recognising the additional costs associated with patient complexity. However no payment system can perfectly reflect patient complexity and other local issues. Monitor have a published process for providers who wish to seek an amendment to tariff prices, known as the local modification process.