Tag: 2016

Baroness Barker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Barker on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their expected bilateral spending on technical assistance to programmes funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in addition to their commitment to the Global Fund in (1) 2015–16, and (2) 2016–17.

Baroness Verma

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a critically important part of the international architecture for fighting the three diseases. The UK provides technical assistance to programmes funded by the Global Fund through the following organisations: the Stop-TB Partnership, Roll Back Malaria, UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation’s Global Malaria Programme. The table (below) shows DFID’s spend to these organisations over the last five financial years.

(£ Millions)

	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
WHOs Global Malaria Programme	–	1.50	3.50	1.50	3.50
Roll Back Malaria	0.52	1.00	1.63	0.63	1.23
Stop TB Partnership	1.00	1.90	1.50	0.50	1.00
UNAIDS	10.00	10.00	15.00	15.00	15.00

Total (£ Millions)	11.52	14.40	21.63	17.63	20.73

The UK is committed to remaining a world leader in tackling global diseases and ending the epidemics of AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by 2030. Our future contributions to the Global Fund will be determined following the completion of the Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews.

01/01/2023

Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-04-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Written Statement to the House of 16 July 2015, HCWS113, on Publication of Learning not Blaming and Review of NHS Leadership, what assessment he has made of the consistency of the abolition of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s statutory Midwifery Committee with his plan to end the statutory supervision of midwives.

Ben Gummer

In the ‘Learning not blaming: The government response to Freedom to Speak Up, the Public Administration Select Committee report on clinical incidents, and the Morecambe Bay Investigation’, the Government accepted the recommendation to remove the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) current responsibility and accountability for statutory supervision of midwives in the United Kingdom and committed to changing the law as speedily as possible.

The abolition of the statutory Midwifery Committee at the NMC is a consequence of the Law Commission review of professional regulators. The Midwifery Committee does not have a role in the statutory supervision of midwives. The NMC is considering how midwifery advice will be secured by the NMC if the Midwifery Committee is, after consultation, abolished. It has set up a Midwifery Panel of interested parties to do this.

The proposals for a new design of supervision for midwifery, incorporated setting up a task force in each country of the UK under the auspices of each UK Chief Nursing Officer. They are currently working through plans to create new mechanisms and considering what systems and processes will replace the Local Supervising Authorities.

01/01/2023
Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2016-06-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and UK Space Agency cross-boundary research proposals submitted through the Joint Electronic Submission System received funding in each of the last three years.

Joseph Johnson

In the last financial year one cross-boundary research proposal was considered for co-funding by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the UK Space Agency. This proposal was discussed at the relevant EPSRC funding panel and was awarded funding. In the two years prior, no proposals were received which were considered for co-funding in this respect.

01/01/2023
Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for what reason the decision was taken that NHS England will in future fund only one stem cell transplant for blood cancer patients; what estimate he has made of the number of patients who will be affected by that decision; and what assessment he has made of the potential effect of that policy change on blood cancer survival rates.

David Mowat

The provision of second stem cell transplants was considered as part of NHS England’s annual prioritisation process by the Specialised Commissioning Oversight Group (SCOG). Decisions by SCOG are based on recommendations made by Clinical Priorities Advisory Group (CPAG) which uses a defined process to prioritise treatments based on a combination of cost and patient benefit.

NHS England announced on 2 August that CPAG will re-run the prioritisation process to include proposals previously prioritised in levels 3, 4 and 5. The re-run of the prioritisation process is expected to take place later in the year. Until the process is completed clinicians, on behalf of their patients can continue to apply for funding for second transplant for relapsed disease where there is clinically exceptional or clinically critical need.

01/01/2023
Gareth Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Thomas on 2016-10-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which agreed EU directives have not yet been transposed directly into UK law; and if he will make a statement.

Margot James

Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible for transposition of the following agreed Directives: 2013/30/EU, 2013/55/EU, 2013/53/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2015/13/EU, 2014/53/EU, 2014/68/EU, 2014/95/EU, 2014/104/EU, 2015/2302/EU, 2015/2436/EU, 2014/87/EU, 2013/59/EU.

01/01/2023
Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-01-04.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion of tax credit recipients had their credits withdrawn when their children progressed into post-16 education in each of the last five financial years.

Damian Hinds

No Child Tax Credit (CTC) claimants should have had their award ended as a consequence of their child progressing into post-16 education provided they continue to meet the qualifying conditions for CTC and their child is in full-time, non-advanced education, as prescribed in the relevant regulations.

01/01/2023
Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-28.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether academy schools will be covered under the public sector exit payment cap proposed in the Enterprise Bill.

Greg Hands

The Government consulted on implementing a public sector exit payment cap in July 2015. The Government response to this consultation was published on 16 September 2015. This response provides detail on which organisations and types of payments the Government intends to capture within the scope of the public sector exit payment cap. This accords with the Government’s manifesto commitment to end tax payer funded six figure payoffs for public sector workers.

The response document can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464367/Public_sector_exit_payments_response.pdf

The exit payment cap will apply to payments made as a result of an employee leaving their employment. It will not affect any pension a person has earned through their years of service or have any impact on accrued pension rights or pension lump sum entitlements on retirement. It will capture contributions, made by the employer, to fund early access to an unreduced or partially reduced pension. This is because such costs are ultimately funded by the tax payer.

The Government has been clear that early retirements relating to ill health are outside the scope of the cap and will not be affected. Additionally, any payments directed by a Court or Tribunal will not be included in the scope of the cap.

Exits on compassionate grounds are not such a clearly defined concept as exits related to ill health or redundancy. There will generally be a large degree of employer discretion on the terms of such exits, and on any payments. In these cases there will be discretion available to relax the cap in individual cases, subject to relevant Ministerial or local council approval, as will be set out in further detail in forthcoming Treasury guidance and directions.

01/01/2023
Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-02-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost was of maintaining the defence attaché network in (a) 2013-14 and (b) 2014-15; and what proportion of the cost of that network was attributable to support for defence and security exports.

Mr Philip Dunne

The following information shows Ministry of Defence funding for the Defence Attaché and Advisor Network for financial year (FY) 2013-14 and FY 2014-15.

FY 2013-14

FY 2014-15

Attaché Costs

£31,864,185

£31,635,761

FCO Platform Charges

£9,919,278

£13,302,918

Total Cost

£41,783,463

£44,938,679

Support for exports is one of the many roles carried out by Defence Attachés as part of the International Defence Engagement Strategy. The Defence Attaché network has no specific budget or post allocated to this task.

01/01/2023
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many meetings of the National Flood Resilience Review have taken place, and when that review is expected to report.

Lord Bridges of Headley

To protect the integrity of the policy making process, we do not comment on specific frequency or timings of ministerial meetings. The Review is set to be published this summer.

01/01/2023
Valerie Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Valerie Vaz on 2016-04-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what (a) oral and (b) written communication, guidance and information there has been between his Department and (i) NHS England and (ii) NHS foundation trusts on implementation of changes to junior doctors’ contracts and terms and conditions.

Ben Gummer

The Department communicates on a regular basis with NHS England and foundation trusts.

However, NHS Employers are, on behalf of government, leading on the implementation of the new contract and they are in regular contact with NHS trust and foundation trust employers.

Details of NHS Employers communications can be found at:

http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/link.aspx?_id=3C38D4A74B8148FE88422AC66DB51E72&_z=z

“

01/01/2023

	FY 2013-14	FY 2014-15
Attaché Costs	£31,864,185	£31,635,761
FCO Platform Charges	£9,919,278	£13,302,918
Total Cost	£41,783,463	£44,938,679