Tag: Lord Stoddart of Swindon

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Earl Howe on 18 January concerning a gifting package to Ukraine (HLWS463), whether this gift will be financed from the overseas aid budget, the defence budget, or another source.

Earl Howe

The gift of 3,500 first aid kits will be purchased using funds from Her Majesty’s Government’s Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund (CSSF). The CSSF is a cross-Whitehall fund. As well as defence reform, the CSSF Ukraine programme supports a number of interventions including strategic communications, peace-building activities and support to international organisations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 10 February (HL5715), whether they now intend to legislate to allow heterosexuals to form civil partnerships, and if not, why not.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The Noble Lord wrote to me on this topic previously (HL5715). As I previously said:

In 2014, after the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed, the government carried out a review of the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, including a thorough public consultation on potential changes to civil partnership. Views were invited on three options: Abolishing, or phasing out civil partnerships; or extending them to opposite sex couples.

The review found that there was no clear consensus on the future of civil partnerships. A majority of respondents to the consultation were against extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples and several important organisations thought it was too soon to consider making changes to civil partnerships until the impact of extending marriage to same sex couples is known. Given the lack of any consensus the Government has no current plans to make changes to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

On 29 January 2016 the High Court dismissed a legal challenge to the lack of availability of civil partnerships to opposite sex couples. The Court ruled unequivocally that the current regime of marriage and civil partnership does not disadvantage anyone nor does it infringe anyone’s right to family or private life. We also welcome the Court’s view that it is entirely reasonable for the Government to wait to see the impact of extending marriage to same sex couples before deciding on the way forward.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to take action against hospital trusts which continue to breach mixed-sex accommodation guidance.

Lord Prior of Brampton

All patients deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and the Government has made it clear that providers of National Health Service funded care are expected to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation, except where this is in the overall best interest of the patient, or reflects their personal choice.

Since 2010, there has been a fall from almost 12,000 patients in mixed-sex accommodation to 753 reported in March 2016. We will continue to monitor monthly breach data and performance across the NHS in partnership with NHS England. The financial penalty for non-delivery of the operational standard is mandated through the NHS Standard Contract 2016/17, and applies to all providers of acute, cancer and mental health services.

Under the terms of the Contract, where a breach occurs, the commissioner whose patient is affected must levy the financial sanction specified by the Contract. That sanction is £250 for each day that patient is affected by the breach.

Delivering zero breaches for every trust, every month, is unlikely. This is because there will be some occasions where patients are mixed appropriately, even when their clinical care needs do not demand it (for example if a patient is admitted in the middle of the night and the only way to release an appropriate bed is to awaken and move other patients).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-09-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the safety of users of the M4 motorway following the removal of the hard shoulders, and what arrangements will be made for the emergency services to have urgent and easy access to the motorway in the event of accidents and other incidents.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The M4 Junctions 3 to 12 smart motorway scheme incorporates the following features to ensure safety is maintained:

• 100% CCTV coverage to monitor traffic conditions including during incidents
• Enforcement cameras to improve speed limit compliance which contributes to reducing the risk and severity of incidents
• Emergency Refuge Areas at an average spacing of 1¼ miles as it is likely that the majority of all breakdowns will be able to reach one
• Overhead variable message signs for instructions and information to drivers

This allows Highways England to create an emergency lane or lanes on any lane on the motorway, with signs and signals to provide access for the emergency services or traffic officers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 21 July (HL1392), whether, in the light of the collapse of Kids Company, they will now publish a list of charities receiving significant donations from government departments or the National Health Service.

Lord Bridges of Headley

The 2014/15 government Grants Register will be published in the coming months by the Grants Efficiency Programme in the Cabinet Office. The Register includes high level details on all central government grant schemes, not just those to charities. It does not include details of all recipients or grants made by the NHS or local authorities. To improve sharing of information on grant awards, the Grants Efficiency Programme is developing a grants data repository.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and The Times which found that contracts made by the Clinical Commissioning Groups with providers could financially benefit board members of the group.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have legal duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to manage conflicts of interests when deciding which health services to procure. CCGs must manage any actual or perceived conflicts in a way that is transparent, fair, and protects the integrity of their decision making.

NHS England publishes guidance for CCGs on their responsibility to manage conflicts of interest. CCGs must have regard to this.

Monitor must ensure that CCGs follow National Health Service regulations on procurement, patient choice and competition, and have powers of investigation if these are not followed.

In their recent report ‘Managing conflicts of interest in NHS clinical commissioning groups’ (a copy of which is attached) the National Audit Office found that CCGs generally had arrangements in place to manage conflicts of interest to reduce the risk of commissioners’ decisions being improperly influenced.

The NAO made recommendations to the Department, NHS England, Monitor and CCGs to strengthen current arrangements and we would expect the bodies concerned to consider these carefully and take appropriate action in response.

Action is already being taken by NHS England including:

‒ strengthening its CCG assurance processes;

‒ commissioning an independent audit of conflicts of interest management in ten primary care co-commissioning arrangements, with a review to using the learning to strengthen current arrangements;

‒ providing training to CCG lay members on management of conflicts of interest in 2015, with more training planned for next year; and

‒ reviewing its own internal rules on conflicts of interest and the statutory guidance it issues to CCGs on management of conflicts of interest to ensure that arrangements are robust.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the nuclear agreement with Iran, they plan to make representations to the government of Israel to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agree to the same level of inspection now accepted by Iran.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. All state parties should be pushing for universality of the treaty. In that regard, the Government continues to call on all states that are not parties to the NPT, including Israel, to accede to it, and we also continue to call on Israel to agree a full scope Comprehensive Safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 10 February (HL5712), what other mechanisms are available to the EU to intervene on, or influence, taxation in individual member states.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

Direct tax is a Member State competence. Under the Treaties, any Directives on tax are agreed by unanimity, the effect of which is to give each Member State a veto power.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to contest the European Commission’s decision to open an infringement case against the UK over time-based road charges for heavy goods vehicles.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Commission has requested information prior to reaching a considered view about the UK’s HGV Levy and its compatibility with EU Directives. The Government considers that the levy is justified and consistent with the free movement of goods, and will respond to the Commission in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-09-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accident rate on the M4 motorway between junctions 10 and 12 is equivalent to the average rate for all motorways; and how many accidents in the last year on that part of the motorway involved heavy lorries.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The accident rate for 2012-2014 on the M4 between junctions 10 and 12 is below the average rate for all motorways. There were 7 personal injury accidents in 2014 involving heavy lorries on this section of the motorway.

This is based on the latest validated accident data Highways England holds for the Road Network for 2014, with the 2015 data due to be released in October 2016.