Tag: 2016

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to paragraph 2.31 of his Department’s Road Safety Statement, published in December 2015, what progress he has made on ensuring that the Government promotes the uptake of vehicles with high safety ratings through its own buying and procurement.

    Andrew Jones

    The Government Buying Standards (GBS) are mandatory for central government procurement and recommended for the wider public sector.

    The current GBS has been in place since 2012. Departments for Transport and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working together to revise the standards for cars and revisions will encourage safer and cleaner vehicles where appropriate, new standards are expected by 2017.

  • Eric Pickles – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Eric Pickles – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Eric Pickles on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will assess the additional costs to the NHS if Israeli-owned or Israeli-based companies were banned from supplying generic medicines to the NHS.

    David Mowat

    We do not routinely collect information on where pharmaceutical manufacturers are based, or whether they have connections with particular countries. Any company with the necessary regulatory authorisations can supply medicines to the National Health Service. However, some 100 million prescription items for medicines used in the community in England are estimated to come from companies based in Israel. This includes some medicines where one of these companies will be the main supplier. Banning these supplies would most likely cause significant shortages of some medicines important for patient health and have a significant impact on competition and in all likelihood increase prices paid by the NHS.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals for diverting a proportion of the EU’s external aid to assist member states in receiving and caring for the current increased numbers of refugees, and to job-creating investment in the Middle East and North Africa.

    Baroness Verma

    With pressure from the United Kingdom and other Member States, the European Union (EU) has mobilised considerable funding to support the international response to the refugee crisis – including within Europe, and to tackle the root causes of migration and displacement in the Middle East and North Africa.

    Within Europe, the UK is working to ensure that all tools are being used to support the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis, and that the donor effort is well coordinated through the Civil Protection Mechanism. Alongside this, the UK’s support for refugees and migrants during the Mediterranean migration crisis has reached nearly £55million. This money is focused on providing life-saving assistance and protection to vulnerable people rescued at sea or in transit.

    In the Middle East and the North Africa, the EU is a leading donor in the response to the Syria crisis with over €5 billion of total budget mobilised by the European Commission and Member States collectively in humanitarian, development, economic and stabilisation assistance. The UK has been at the forefront of this, pledging over £1.1 billion, our largest ever humanitarian response to a single crisis. In addition, the EU Trust Fund for Africa – a €1.8billion fund – will allocate money to projects in the Sahel, Horn and North Africa to tackle the root causes of migration.

  • David Amess – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    David Amess – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Amess on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with C2C on the effect of changes to its timetable on consumer satisfaction.

    Claire Perry

    I met with c2c on the 10th February. I have asked them to make proposals to adjust their plans to deliver a more attractive balance between service levels and overcrowding, and the Department will work with c2c to deliver these at the earliest opportunity.

  • Kelvin Hopkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Kelvin Hopkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kelvin Hopkins on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions his Department has had with Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd on extending driver-only operation on its services.

    Claire Perry

    Govia Thameslink Railway have made officials aware of the intention to engage with staff and their representatives regarding future plans for Driver Only Operation on some services.

  • Mark Prisk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Prisk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Prisk on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the period will be for a decision to be made on applications to the Primary Care Trust Fund.

    Alistair Burt

    NHS England will publish further guidance about the Primary Care Transformation Fund later this month.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thangam Debbonaire on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the effect on arts and culture of changes to local government funding from central government; and what further such discussions are planned on this issue.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    DCMS and DCLG Ministers and officials regularly discuss matters of shared interest including arts, culture and public libraries.The Culture White Paper which was published in March reflects the close working between the two Departments​.​

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 13 June 2016 to Question 40383, whether the Government has the power under current delay repay infrastructure to allow people to claim compensation for 15-minute delays before it makes other planned improvements to compensation arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

    Claire Perry

    All franchised Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are required under their franchise agreement to have in place a Passenger’s Charter which will include arrangements for compensation for passengers. TOCs can, at their discretion, go beyond the commitments in their Passenger’s Charter including on compensation on an ex gratia basis.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the defintion of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on the ability of her Department to meet Stephen Shaw’s recommendation to adopt a wider definition of those at risk.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many claims of diplomatic immunity were advanced in UK courts, or other legal procedures, between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2016; how many of those were successful; and of which states those successful and unsuccessful claimants were citizens.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    A number of claims of diplomatic immunity have been advanced through the UK courts. However, statistics and details are not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.