Tag: Jeff Smith

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-06-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, following the review of homelessness legislation undertaken by the charity Crisis entitled The homelessness legislation: An independent review of the legal duties owed to homeless people, published on 25 April 2016, whether he plans to undertake a review of such legislation.

Mr Marcus Jones

I welcome the recent report from the Crisis Expert Panel into the legal duties owed to homeless people. It provides a valuable insight into how aspects of the current legislation in England can learn from the model adopted in Wales.

We are considering all options, including legislation, and will continue to talk to local authorities, homelessness organisations and other government departments.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-02-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of implications for her policies of the finding in the Fair Admissions Campaign’s report, An unholy mess, published in October 2015, that schools which are their own admission authorities are consistently failing to comply with the School Admissions Code.

Nick Gibb

Many of the findings of the report echo those reported by the Chief Schools Adjudicator in her Annual Report for the 2013/14 school year. The Government will shortly consult on a package of changes to the School Admissions Code which will both respond to concerns from parents and to the findings in the Chief Adjudicator’s Annual Report. That package will include measures to improve fairness and transparency.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-06-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 26 May 2016 to Question 37876, what (a) number and (b) proportion of penalty charge notices issued between January and December 2015 related only to medical exemption certificates.

Alistair Burt

Between January and December 2015, a total of 34,142 penalty charge notices were issued to patients declaring they held a valid medical exemption certificate, which the National Health Service Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) was unable to verify. This equated to 7.92% of all penalty charge notices issued.

During the same period, a total of 9,170 of these were subsequently retracted when the patient proved their right to exemption. This equated to 26.86% of all penalty charge notices issued for medical exemption certificates.

Often the reason the penalty charge notice is retracted is because the patient has not informed the NHSBSA of a change of address or surname. This means the record of the medical exemption does not match the patient information on the prescription form. If a patient provides details of a valid medical exemption certificate, the penalty charge notice is retracted and the medical exemption record is updated to ensure further notices are not issued in error.

Following the introduction of prescription charge exemption checking, it became apparent some people receiving penalty charge notices had a qualifying medical condition, but had not applied for a medical exemption certificate. In response, a new process was introduced in early spring 2015. This means that if someone submits a valid application for a medical or maternity exemption certificate within 60 days from date of the penalty charge notice, the outstanding penalty charge is cancelled but the prescription charge is still recovered.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-02-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to her Department’s press release, Parents to get greater say in the school admissions process of 25 January 2016, when her Department plans to launch its consultation on proposed revisions to the School Admissions Code.

Nick Gibb

We are currently considering what possible changes it would be appropriate to make to the School Admissions Code to support parents and schools, in addition to those that we have already announced. We will conduct a full public consultation in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-06-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 26 May 2016 to Question 37876, what (a) number and (b) proportion of total penalty charge notices issued for invalid medical exemption certificates between January 2015 and December 2015 were subsequently retracted when the patient proved their right to exemption.

Alistair Burt

Between January and December 2015, a total of 34,142 penalty charge notices were issued to patients declaring they held a valid medical exemption certificate, which the National Health Service Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) was unable to verify. This equated to 7.92% of all penalty charge notices issued.

During the same period, a total of 9,170 of these were subsequently retracted when the patient proved their right to exemption. This equated to 26.86% of all penalty charge notices issued for medical exemption certificates.

Often the reason the penalty charge notice is retracted is because the patient has not informed the NHSBSA of a change of address or surname. This means the record of the medical exemption does not match the patient information on the prescription form. If a patient provides details of a valid medical exemption certificate, the penalty charge notice is retracted and the medical exemption record is updated to ensure further notices are not issued in error.

Following the introduction of prescription charge exemption checking, it became apparent some people receiving penalty charge notices had a qualifying medical condition, but had not applied for a medical exemption certificate. In response, a new process was introduced in early spring 2015. This means that if someone submits a valid application for a medical or maternity exemption certificate within 60 days from date of the penalty charge notice, the outstanding penalty charge is cancelled but the prescription charge is still recovered.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-04-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he expects all regions in England to have a complete Liaison and Diversion service.

Alistair Burt

Liaison and Diversion services are currently provided to over 50% of the population of England. Full roll out by 2020/21, as recommended by the “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” report published in February 2016, is subject to a decision from HM Treasury on the full business case. A formal response is expected from HM Treasury in the next few days and an announcement will be made shortly thereafter.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-07-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps she is taking to ensure that academics in the UK will be able to continue collaborating with academics in universities in EU member states after the UK leaves the EU.

Joseph Johnson

The EU Erasmus+ programme provides opportunities for schools and colleges to collaborate with their counterparts in Europe, and with universities. Access to the programme after we leave the EU is a matter for the forthcoming exit negotiations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-04-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he expects the decision on the business case for Liaison and Diversion services to be announced by HM Treasury.

Alistair Burt

Liaison and Diversion services are currently provided to over 50% of the population of England. Full roll out by 2020/21, as recommended by the “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” report published in February 2016, is subject to a decision from HM Treasury on the full business case. A formal response is expected from HM Treasury in the next few days and an announcement will be made shortly thereafter.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-09-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the effect on consumers of the practice by certain mobile phone companies of enforcing a two-week wait before customers can receive their unlock codes in order to change provider.

Matt Hancock

At Autumn Statement 2015, we challenged the mobile phone industry to improve their handset unlocking practices; since then operators have committed to unlocking many more of their customers’ handsets for free, and as of this autumn, no major mobile provider will charge a customer to unlock their phone outside of an initial contract period.

During the Government assessment of handset unlocking practices in early 2016, the major mobile providers were challenged on their turnaround times for issuing unlock codes. Although many providers state that it can take up to 10 working days to issue an unlock code, this is only in the instance that the provider has to contact the handset manufacturer to obtain the unlocking code. In the majority of cases, providers are able to issue unlock codes within 1-3 working days.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeff Smith on 2016-04-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people under the age of (a) 18 and (b) 16 reported to hospital having taken more than the recommended daily allowance of non-prescription painkillers in (i) the last 12 months and (ii) each of the last three years.

Jane Ellison

This information is not collected centrally.