Tag: Lord Jopling

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Leader of the House how many Questions for Written Answer were put to each Government department and answered within the target 10 working days in each month in the 2015–16 Session, together with the relevant percentages in each case.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston

In line with the practice established in the last session, following the commitment made by my predecessor (HL Deb 8 May 2014, col 1575), I will continue to publish annually the performance of departments on their promptness in dealing with Questions for Written Answer. My office will also continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and comprehensive responses to all Questions for Written Answer.

The statistics for the 2014-15 session are available as a Written Statement (HLWS39). I will shortly publish data on departmental performance for the 2015-16 session.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-06-07.

To ask the Chairman of Committees, further to his Written Answer on 6 June (HL91), what, if any, is the specification for ermine robes with regard to the materials used, and whether there would be any impediment to clothiers, such as those in the Far East, providing robes for peers either for purchase or for hire.

Lord Laming

As set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords Relating to Public Business: “When Her Majesty comes publicly to the House, the Lords shall be attired in their robes or in such other dress as may be approved by Her Majesty”. A proposal for robes other than those presently used would be considered by the appropriate authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-09-05.

To ask the Leader of the House, further to her Written Statement on 21 July (HLWS128), what discussion she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in the light of that Department’s position as the Department having the worst record in answering Questions for Written Answer within 10 working days, and whether the Secretary of State intends to make a Written Statement to explain what steps have been taken within that Department to match the overall record of government departments in answering 93 per cent of Written Question within 10 working days.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

I take very seriously my responsibility as Leader of the House to encourage Ministers to be punctual in answering written questions. I recently published data on departmental performance in answering Questions for Written Answer for the 2015/16 session, where I was pleased to see that 93% of questions were answered within 10 working days. Nevertheless, we must always strive to do better. I have written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session to make clear the House’s expectations and to stress the importance of timely responses.

Though the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (formerly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) received 475 Questions for Written Answer in 2015/16 – more than double the number received in the previous session – Ministers were nevertheless disappointed by the department’s performance. In response the department has put in place a range of actions to improve performance, including strengthening internal deadlines and procedures. Baroness Neville-Rolfe, as the Lords Minister, has stressed to me how seriously the department takes its responsibilities to Parliament and is confident that performance will improve in this session.

My office continues to work with all departments to ensure prompt and comprehensive responses to all Questions for Written Answer. I will continue to publish data on an annual basis to allow analysis of performance over time. This practice is important in highlighting where improvements in timeliness could and should be made.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-09-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 14 June (HL500), whether they intend to publish in the Official Record a summary of the findings of the lessons learnt review of the 83 per cent escalation of costs for the recent improvements to the A1 road close to Gamston Airport, and what steps they have taken to reduce the risk of similar occurrences.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The “Lessons Learned” workshop was completed on 8 June 2016 and is currently under review. There are some outstanding issues to be resolved regarding the possible requirement for permanent speed cameras, the agreement of alterations to a private access and the completion of road safety audit works, before it can be completed. Highways England intend to publish their findings on their website in due course.

To reduce the risks of similar occurrences, Highways England now has a greater focus on strategic planning with a five year plan of work. They are more able to ensure early contractor involvement more proactively in the development and construction of schemes. Highways England will take the lessons learned on the A1 Elkesley and ensure they are given due consideration in future schemes.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-09-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of the total mileage of each UK motorway is subject to speed restrictions lower than 70 mph.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The number of miles of a motorway subject to speed restrictions varies on a daily basis, depending on planned roadworks as well as temporary restrictions that need to be imposed due to incidents. There also are some sections, such as motorway to motorway junctions, which have speed restrictions due to the road geometry or for other safety considerations. Every effort is made to keep such restrictions to a minimum.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-09-13.

To ask the Leader of the House what explanation she has received from the Ministry of Justice concerning its failure to answer by 9 September a Question for Written Answer that was asked on 20 July (HL1379).

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park):

I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process has been followed in both of the cases to which the noble Lord refers.

In the case of the Ministry of Justice question, I am informed that the delay related the process of transferring it to the right department for response. After discussion it was transferred to the Cabinet Office, who will provide a substantive answer by close of play this week. As regards the Department for Education questions, I am informed that the delay related to gathering complex data spanning a long period and the need to obtain clearance from across government. Both of the questions concerned have now been answered.

Regarding timely replies more generally, I have recently written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session and I regularly set out the House’s expectations as they apply to QWAs to my frontbench team. Notwithstanding the cases referenced above, I am pleased to say that the proportion of on-time responses from the Ministry of Justice rose from 74% of questions in 2014-15 to 87% in 2015-16; while the Department for Education answered well over 90% of questions on time in both sessions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-09-13.

To ask the Leader of the House what explanation she has received from the Department for Education concerning its failure to answer by 9 September two Questions for Written Answer that were asked on 19 July (HL1338) and 21 July (HL1440).

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park):

I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process has been followed in both of the cases to which the noble Lord refers.

In the case of the Ministry of Justice question, I am informed that the delay related the process of transferring it to the right department for response. After discussion it was transferred to the Cabinet Office, who will provide a substantive answer by close of play this week. As regards the Department for Education questions, I am informed that the delay related to gathering complex data spanning a long period and the need to obtain clearance from across government. Both of the questions concerned have now been answered.

Regarding timely replies more generally, I have recently written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session and I regularly set out the House’s expectations as they apply to QWAs to my frontbench team. Notwithstanding the cases referenced above, I am pleased to say that the proportion of on-time responses from the Ministry of Justice rose from 74% of questions in 2014-15 to 87% in 2015-16; while the Department for Education answered well over 90% of questions on time in both sessions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2014-05-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 6 May (WA 365), whether they will now answer the question which was put.

Baroness Northover

DFID’s Executive Management Committee review year-to-date and forecast expenditure against budgets each month through a monthly Management Information report.

There is no formal cost overrun percentage threshold that triggers a review of specific budgets. The EMC does however examine potential material overspending each month that represents a significant risk to the DFID’s overall Resource and Capital budgets.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2014-05-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Newby on 6 May (WA 365), whether they will now answer the question which was put.

Lord Faulks

Further to the information given by my Noble Friend on 6 May (WA 365) I can add that the Ministry of Justice does not operate a strict percentage based escalation process for financial issues. The Departmental Board receive a routine update on the Ministry’s financial position at every meeting. This provides a summary of the overall position and, where necessary, highlights any significant variations from, or changes to, budget forecasts.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2014-05-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kramer on 6 May (WA 366), whether they will now answer the question which was put.

Baroness Kramer

Each month the Department for Transport’s Executive Committee receives a summary of the forecast expenditure against budget as part of a Management Information Pack and a commentary in which any significant forecast variances to individual budgets are described and explained. Information at the detailed level is reviewed by each budget holder and Finance Business Partner to ensure that the Department for Transport remains within its control totals and each budget holder remains within their budget. Where forecasts indicate a possible breach of Treasury control totals, this is reported to the Executive Committee every month until the issue is resolved. There were two potential forecast overspends which were at risk of breaching control totals. These issues were highlighted to the Executive Committee three times in 2013-14 until the issues were resolved.

The Department for Transport does not have a prescribed percentage for any forecast overspend to be tabled at the Board or Executive Committee.