Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • 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.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government who are the members of, and what are the terms of reference for, the Department of Health’s Appraisal Alignment Working Group.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The current membership of the Appraisal Alignment Working Group is as follows:

    Department of Health

    Keith Derbyshire (Chair) Chief Analyst and Chief Economist

    Danny Palnoch Senior Economic Adviser

    Peter Bennett Senior Operational Research Scientist

    Dr Mark Bale Deputy Chief Medical Officer

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    Leeza Osipenko Associate Director

    Meindert Boysen Associate Director

    Public Health England

    Prof Brian Ferguson Director for Knowledge & Intelligence

    Dr Anne Mackie Director of Screening

    Monitor

    John Curnow Economics Project Director

    Zephan Trent Impact Assessment Lead

    NHS England

    Dr Donald Franklin Senior Economic Adviser NHS England

    Amy Lee Economic Advisor

    Brunel University

    Prof Martin Buxton Emeritus Professor of Health Economics

    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Representing Joint Committee for Vaccines and Immunisations and Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs

    Prof John Cairns Professor of Health Economics

    The current Terms of Reference (agreed with ministers in February 2014) is replicated below:

    Appraisal Alignment Working Group [AAWG] Terms of Reference & Objectives

    The Appraisal Alignment Working Group (AAWG) is comprised of policy and analytic staff who work in, or give advice to, DH and its ALBs on the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of programmes, technologies and policies.

    The purpose of the group is to share knowledge on the various techniques employed across the Health and Care sector, to discuss and debate the pros and cons of different approaches employed, to consider ways of rendering results comparable, and to understand the reasons for differences in approaches.

    The working group is not a decision making body. Rather it is advisory. Individual members representing different organisations will take back recommendations and questions to their parent bodies for consideration.

    It is proposed to have meetings every six to eight weeks to achieve the ‘Must Do’ (e.g. primary) objective described below.

    The ‘Must Do’

    Before the next Spending Review, (pencilled in for June to October 2015), it is essential the Department of Health (DH) and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) can present a consistent approach o HM Treasury (HMT) on the cost benefit of different programmes (e.g. vaccinations, screening new technologies). The cost benefit case for spending presented to HMT should follow public sector best practice as set out by HMT, in its Green Book. Therefore results of appraisals need to be capable of being expressed in HMT Green Book methodology terms (ie using the Green Book methodology as a “reference case”).

    Having successfully achieved that, the Working Group will take stock and decide if the group (or some other forum) should continue and progress on three desiderata:

    1. economic justification for methods employed in each area and clear rationale for when methods differ and/or diverge from HMT’s Green Book.
    2. achieve greater alignment of techniques between the different sectors and organisations
    3. serve as an expert panel to advise on the development and application of new techniques on an on-going basis.

    This work would be less time critical and could be pursued by meetings every eight to twelve weeks.

  • Kevan Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Kevan Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the size of his Department’s Rapid Deployment Teams in terms of personnel was in each year since 2010.

    James Duddridge

    The Foreign & Commonwealth Office Rapid Deployment Teams are a volunteer cadre of Foreign & Commonwealth Office staff trained to be deployed to augment crisis response overseas. Since 2010 we have had Rapid Deployment Teams based in London, Asia Pacific and the Americas. A fourth Rapid Deployment Team covering the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia (MENASA) was introduced in 2012. In total, we have 185 active members of the Rapid Deployment Team globally consisting of 64 in London, 36 in Asia Pacific, 48 in the Americas and 37 in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia area. On call each week we have 12 London-based staff, 8 Middle East, North Africa and South Asia based staff, 10 Asia Pacific based staff and 11 Americas-based staff. These can be supplemented by additional specialists from the military, Police or British Red Cross. Around 72 new Rapid Deployment Team volunteers are trained each year.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne-Marie Trevelyan on 2016-01-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many claimants have had their asylum claim rejected in each month since May 2010.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office publishes data on asylum initial decisions in Table as_01q (Asylum data tables Volume 1) of the quarterly Immigration Statistics release.

    A copy of the latest release, Immigration Statistics April – June 2015, is available from:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release

    Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  • Pauline Latham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Pauline Latham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of the NHS budget was spent on public relations and communications in each of the last five years.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department does not hold the requested information.

  • Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Chapman on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when the National Screening Committee next plans to meet to review its recommendations on group B streptococcus screening for pregnant mothers.

    Ben Gummer

    In December 2015 the United Kingdom National Screening Committee commissioned a review into antenatal screening for Group B Streptococcus.

    More information including how to contribute to the public consultation will be available using the following link:

    http://legacy.screening.nhs.uk/screening-recommendations.php

    “

  • Laurence Robertson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Laurence Robertson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Laurence Robertson on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 26 February 2016 to Question 27899, what recent assessment she has made of the food security situation in Ethiopia.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    Responding to the food security situation in Ethiopia is a top priority. DFID has already committed £40 million to provide food aid to 3.8 million people in 2016, as part of its overall £113 million response since the onset of the drought last July.

    Across the country, 18 million people are in need of food assistance. Failed rains and the El Niño effect have caused the worst drought in Ethiopia in 30 years. This has resulted in reduced crop yields and numerous livestock deaths – increasing the country’s dependence on food aid.

    Plans are in place to provide monthly food rations until June from various sources, including the UN, donors, and the Government. The Government of Ethiopia has committed over $381 million (~£269 million) so far, which is its largest ever response to a drought. However, systems are currently stretched and the scale of the crisis means that further resources are needed to meet monthly food distribution needs from June onwards. We continue to work closely with the Government of Ethiopia to support their leadership of the humanitarian response.

  • 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.