UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to take account of the levels of satisfaction with pay reported in the Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey in his setting of pay policy for the armed forces.

    Mark Lancaster

    The new Pay 16 structure was specifically established in response to Service personnel criticisms of the old pay model. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has developed the new pay model as a simpler, more transparent system which provides Service personnel with greater pay predictability. It addresses some of the concerns about the previous pay model reported by personnel through both the Service Complaints system and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I fully expect these changes to be positive for morale overall.

    Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of the new pay model, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation. We have taken steps to ensure that personnel are aware of the range and nature of the pay reforms that began on 1 April 2016 and comprehensive internal communications activity has been undertaken to explain the changes. This included Departmental guidance to help personnel understand their new pay statement and any changes. Personnel, including those under pay protection, continue to remain eligible for any Government-approved pay award. Pay protection has been put in place to ensure that no one will take a pay cut on implementation of Pay 16 and this arrangement will exist for at least the first three years to ensure that no one is disadvantaged.

    The new pay model is not designed as a cost saving exercise, but is a rebalancing of pay to make more efficient and effective use of the Armed Forces pay bill; the AFPRB will continue to recommend pay rates for all personnel. As we go forward the Service Complaints Process and AFCAS will be primary sources which inform our assessment of the benefits realised through the pay reforms.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many full-time equivalent staff from (a) his Department, (b) NHS England, (c) NHS commissioners, (d) NHS providers and (e) local authorities are working on the NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Coast, Humber and Vale; and how much has been spent to date on the Coast, Humber and Vale STP.

    David Mowat

    The information is not held centrally. The number of staff working on and resources allocated to local Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) will vary at different stages of the process. These are locally led health and care transformation programmes and resources relating to each STP will be determined at a local level.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the priority given to the promotion of democracy and human rights within the UK–Sudanese strategic dialogue; and what assessment they have made of (1) the reliability of the Sudanese regime as a reliable partner with a shared agenda, and (2) the extent to which the strategic dialogue will embolden the regime in Sudan to continue with their current policies.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Improving human rights remains one of our policy priorities in Sudan, and therefore discussions of human rights issues are a key part of the UK-Sudan Strategic Dialogue. At the last round of talks on 10/11 October, a representative from the Sudan Advisory Council for Human Rights accompanied the Sudanese delegation.

    In a number of areas we fundamentally disagree with the government of Sudan; however, in others our interests are much more closely aligned. We assess that direct engagement through the Strategic Dialogue process provides better opportunities to raise issues of bilateral concern, as well as to look at strategic questions such as the resolution of internal conflicts, regional security and migration. We keep this policy under regular review.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Shabana Mahmood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Shabana Mahmood on 2016-01-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment the Government has made of (a) the extent of differential treatment of Palestinian and Israeli child detainees by Israel and (b) whether that differential is consistent with Israelis international human rights obligations.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We remain concerned about the use of a dual court system whereby Palestinians, except East Jerusalem residents, are subject to the Israeli military court system, irrespective of the charge, whereas Israeli citizens are dealt with by the Israeli civil justice system. We are clear that Israel has legal obligations as an Occupying Power with respect to the Occupied Palestinian Territories under applicable international law. We regularly discuss with the Government of Israel implementation of those obligations and raise our serious concerns regarding such issues as the treatment of Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons.

  • Roger Mullin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Roger Mullin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Mullin on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the performance of NHS emergency medicine services.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS staff in England continue to provide quality services in the face of increasingly high-levels of demand throughout the emergency healthcare system. Front-line services are treating record numbers of patients with more than nine out of 10 patients seen within four hours in A&E departments. Ambulance services are delivering over 2800 more emergency journeys every day compared to 2010 and responding to the majority of life-threatening cases in under 8 minutes.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many times the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has met officials of the Cabinet Office to discuss improving diversity in the Senior Civil Service in the last six months.

    Matthew Hancock

    Promoting diversity in the Senior Civil Service is a ministerial responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Details of my Ministers meetings with external organisations are published routinely and can be found on Gov.uk. Details of internal meetings are not disclosed.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will take steps to introduce lifetime awards for people assessed as requiring the upper personal independence payment allowance mobility component who have been diagnosed with muscle degenerative diseases or conditions.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Personal Independence Payment is specifically designed to ensure that the benefit is awarded to those with the greatest need and the award review process is integral to ensuring this happens. Under Disability Living Allowance over 70% of all claims had no review built-in, meaning that claimants could have been receiving too much or too little in benefit.

    We take a personalised approach to setting the length of awards, varying the frequency and format of awards and reviews depending on the individual’s needs and the likelihood of their health condition or impairment changing.

    Where the claimant has high levels of functional impairment which are only likely to increase or not improve, it is likely that the claimant will receive an enhanced rate of benefit and a longer term award.

    We recognise that it is important to ensure that the review process is applied sensitively and appropriately. As such, it is likely that the awards of such claimants would also go through a less intensive review process which may not, if all the necessary information is held, include a face-to-face assessment.

  • Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jess Phillips on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the average time taken is for an academy school to be re-brokered to another academy sponsor.

    Edward Timpson

    Where an academy is not meeting the required standard or needs a change of sponsor, the Regional Schools Commissioner strives to ensure that this change happens as quickly as possible, with minimum impact to the school. The Department does not hold a central record of the time taken for re-brokerage.

    The Education and Adoption Act 2016 gives Regional Schools Commissioners powers to tackle underperformance in academies more quickly, by allowing them to terminate their funding agreement and re-broker an academy as soon as it is judged inadequate by Ofsted or identified as coasting.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department takes to vet directors of multi-academy trusts; and if she will make a statement.

    Edward Timpson

    Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) are responsible for appointing trustees with the right skills to deliver their functions effectively. Our model articles require MATs to ensure that both trustees and those serving on any local governing bodies at individual academies within the MAT have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. MATs’ Articles of Association also set out the circumstances by which someone is disqualified from being a trustee, including conviction of a criminal offence or bankruptcy. A trustee can be removed by the board under the Companies Act 2006.

    Regional Schools Commissioners check that the trustees of a MAT have the necessary skills and expertise before the funding agreement of an academy or free school joining the MAT is signed. We may also conduct checks to make an assessment of a MAT trustee’s suitability, where deemed necessary. The Secretary of State can bar a person from taking part in the management of a MAT under the Education Act 2008.

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, to what extent NICE has involved external stakeholders and charities in reviewing how well the incremental cost effectiveness ratio is working in making new cancer medicines available to patients on the NHS.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has advised that it has not been asked to review how well the application of the cost effectiveness methodology is working in making new cancer medicines available to patients on the National Health Service.

    NICE periodically reviews its methods and processes for the development of guidance to ensure that they remain appropriate. NICE most recently consulted on changes to its methods for the appraisal of new cancer medicines in November 2015 as part of the consultation on the new operating model for the Cancer Drugs Fund.