Tag: 2016

  • Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawson on 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for healthcare services provided within police custody being considered healthcare facilities, and being funded, inspected, and regulated accordingly, in the light of the number of vulnerable individuals with complex health-related issues who are brought into police custody.

    Lord Bates

    The primary function of a police custody suite is to provide safe detention whilst investigating officers gather evidence, statements and conduct necessary interviews relating to any alleged offence. The provision of custody facilities, including healthcare services within police custody suites is the responsibility of individual police forces, and Police and Crime Commissioners have flexibility to prioritise resources according to local need.

    Both College of Policing and NHS guidance is available to Police and Crime Commissioners to inform their commissioning of healthcare services. Regulation and inspection of police custody including healthcare provision is performed jointly by the three appropriate inspectorate bodies; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation, and the Care Quality Commission.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what progress has been made on delivering the commitments made to Jordan at the Syria Donors Conference.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    In Jordan, a Management Unit has been set up within the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation to which DFID has seconded staff. Existing co-ordination mechanisms, such as the Government-Donor Education group, are developing plans to deliver the Conference goals.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-04-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what estimate he has made of the costs or savings to his Department of (a) none, (b) 25 per cent, (c) 50 per cent, (d) 75 per cent and (e) 100 per cent of the staff based at the St Paul’s Place office leaving his Department as a result of the closure of that office.

    Joseph Johnson

    If the proposal to close the BIS HQ office at St Paul’s Place goes ahead the Department would undertake to offer another round of voluntary exit proposals to staff based in Sheffield, as well as the other smaller numbers in other locations who are affected. We would also expect in such a scenario that a number of staff would find roles elsewhere, and that some members of staff might retire, as well as the possibility that redundancies might be required in some cases. Actual costs would depend on these variables. As regards any estimate of savings to the Department I refer the hon Member to my answer to his related question number UIN 33959.

    “

  • Lord Hunt of Chesterton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Hunt of Chesterton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Chesterton on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that Uber drivers in London and other cities hold genuine driving licences and valid insurance; what penalties are applied by the police and others to Uber drivers who fail to meet those requirements; and what measures are being taken to ensure that owners of Uber vehicles pay the same level of taxes as owners of black cabs and minicabs.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The licensing of private hire vehicles, operators and drivers is the responsibility of local licensing authorities, including Transport for London. The Department for Transport issues Best Practice Guidance to assist with this but it remains a licensing authority’s responsibility to enforce its licensing conditions. Driving without a valid driving licence or valid insurance are both offences, for which penalties, including fines and points on a licence, are ultimately a matter for the courts. Uber drivers have the same tax liability as any other self-employed person.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what her policy is on future British involvement in the European Arrest Warrant.

    Brandon Lewis

    Until Article 50 negotiations have concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU, with all the rights and obligations that brings, and UK authorities continue to cooperate with their counterparts in other EU Member States, including on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The Government is exploring options for cooperation arrangements once the UK has left the EU. However, it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance of negotiations.

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Catherine McKinnell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether her Department plans to continue to fund (a) innovative projects on anti-corruption and transparency and (b) country-specific anti-corruption strategies.

    Rory Stewart

    My Department will continue to fund innovative projects on anti-corruption and transparency. The Secretary of State for International Development has confirmed that transparency and accountability are at the top of her agenda. Moreover the London Anti-Corruption Summit committed to a range of innovative approaches to fighting corruption globally, many of which DFID will support. This includes increased use of company beneficial ownership registers and improved open public contracting standards. DFID will also contribute towards a new UK-led Anti-Corruption Innovation Hub. It will establish a network across countries, businesses and civil society to share know-how, identify opportunities for collaboration and connect technology and data experts with law enforcement and civil society.

    DFID has refreshed anti-corruption strategies for our priority country programmes. These take into account the issues and ambitions created by the Summit and the forthcoming UK Anti-Corruption Strategy. DFID will support our partner countries to implement their Summit commitments where appropriate.

  • Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart C. McDonald on 2016-01-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees of 6 January 2016, Official Report, column 190WH, which French NGO the Government has supported significantly.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Secretary and French Interior Minister agreed in the UK-France Joint Declaration in August 2015 to set up a project aimed at protecting vulnerable people in the Calais migrant camp. The project is being delivered by the French NGO Terre D’Asile.

    The UK has contributed €750,000 (£530,000) to fund the project which formally launched in December 2015.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have  considered tackling in-built obsolescence in computer software, equivalent to legislation in France under decree 1482, and if not, why not.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Decree 1482 concerns obsolescence in appliances rather than computer software. The Government is not specifically considering obsolescence in computer software but has protected consumers in a different way. Since October 2015 consumers have had new rights under the Consumer Rights Act in relation to digital content including software. Software must be of satisfactory quality which includes remaining functional for the period a consumer can reasonably expect.

    Decree 1482 does not cover internet search engines and the concept of in-built obsolescence in relation to internet search engines is unclear so the Government has no plans to address this issue.

  • Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough on 2016-03-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prospective impact on the education and training of Registered Nurses of the UK leaving the EU.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    No work has been undertaken to determine what impact the United Kingdom leaving the European Union would have on the education and training of registered nurses.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-04-14.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many statutory instruments to vary fees charged by public bodies have been laid in Parliament under section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 in each year since 2009-10; how many of those proposals have allowed public bodies to (a) increase fees, (b) levy fees to raise revenues in excess of the cost of the services that body provides and (c) levy fees to raise revenues below the cost of the services that body provides.

    Greg Hands

    The public record indicates that there was one statutory instrument authorised by parliament, laid under the authority of section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987, during the 2009-10 parliamentary session, and none in subsequent sessions.

    This instrument allowed the former Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to take past deficits into account in setting fee levels under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for the three years ending on 31 March 2013. Whether individual fee levels subsequently increased or decreased in any year would depend on the level of costs incurred by OFT in delivering the services for which fees were charged in those years.

    A decision to levy fees below the costs of the service in any year would have been for the OFT to determine in proposing its fee levels for the subsequent years, and its sponsor department in agreeing how to fund any shortfalls.