Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Neil Gray – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Neil Gray – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Gray on 2015-11-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effect on claimants of the extension of time for personal independence payment reassessments referred to in the OBR forecasts of November 2015; and what steps he is taking to address the concerns of people on disability living allowance whose reassessments will take longer to process as a result.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Government is committed to delivering Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in a safe and secure way, ensuring that we continue to roll it out to existing recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) based on capacity, to ensure an effective and efficient service for claimants. Full PIP roll out started in July this year in a controlled way, allowing us to test, learn and improve the service before we ramp up at scale. From October, in line with previously published plans, we began the full rollout of PIP nationally. There are no delays in the claiming system and we are currently working at business as usual capacity. Existing DLA claimants are being kept informed about reassessment activity, including when or under what circumstances they may be invited to claim PIP, through a range of communication measures including information provided in the annual uprating letter or through information available on www.gov.uk.

    “

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-01-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what account his Department plans to take of the need to ensure religious balance when decisions are reached regarding potential forthcoming closures and staff redundancies in HM Revenue and Customs’ offices in Northern Ireland.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs has considered high level people and equality impacts, alongside its key location principles, as part of the decision-making process in determining the location of its future regional centres. The potential impacts on protected characteristic groups, as required by the Northern Ireland Equality legislation, have been incorporated in this approach and will continue to be considered throughout implementation.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any of the devolved administrations have refused to consent to the provisions dealing with public sector exit payments contained within the Enterprise Bill.

    Greg Hands

    The public sector exit payment cap will come into effect at a date after the Enterprise Bill has received Royal Assent. The Enterprise Bill is currently expected to receive Royal Assent by May 2016. A set of secondary regulations which will give effect to the public sector exit payment cap are currently expected to come into force during autumn 2016.

    In the response to the consultation the Government stated that ‘the government would request Legislative Consent Motions from the Devolved Administrations where appropriate, however it would be for the Devolved Administrations to decide the approach they wish to take to this measure.’

    On 7 December 2015 the Northern Ireland Assembly declined to agree a Legislative Consent Motion. Subsequently, no provisions relating to Northern Ireland are included in the clauses relating to exit payments.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make ithis policy to assess the potential merits of the pledge by the Austrian government set out in the report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, A Pledge to Fill the Legal Gap, published in February 2015 for the work of the UN Open Ended Working Group on multilateral disarmament negotiations.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The UK is committed to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the goals of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a way that promotes international stability, and is based on the principle of undiminished security for all. The Austrian pledge to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons runs counter to the step-by-step disarmament process; and it does not take into account the current global security and stability challenges. The UN Disarmament machinery and the Non-Proliferation Treaty provide the right framework for working towards a world without nuclear weapons.

  • Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-03-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why their representatives in the International Court of Justice on 14 March requested the Court to declare that it lacked jurisdiction over the claim brought against the UK by the Marshall Islands, or that the claim is inadmissible, and under what circumstances they believe the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The UK’s representatives requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare the case inadmissible because that was our assessment following our analysis of the Marshall Islands’ claim. The detail of the UK’s legal arguments is contained in its written preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility, as filed with the Court on 15 June 2015 and oral pleadings, as delivered at the public hearings held at the Court between 9 and 16 March 2016. The question of whether the ICJ has jurisdiction in a particular set of circumstances is a matter to be determined by the Court on a case-by-case basis in light of the relevant facts.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why less than 30 of the 157 children at Calais and identified as eligible for family re-union have so far been admitted to the UK; and what plans they have to improve the processes for re-union.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    There is no official estimate of the number of children in Calais; this is primarily a matter for the French authorities. It is only possible to assess whether an individual has links to the UK that could enable a transfer on family unity grounds once they make an application for asylum in France.

    Once an asylum claim is lodged in another Member State, the Dublin Regulation procedure requesting the UK to take charge of a child on family unity grounds can take place very quickly, often in a matter of weeks, subject to consideration of the evidence in each individual case.

    Since February 2016 the UK has accepted 30 requests from France under the Dublin Regulation to take charge of asylum seeking children on family grounds of which 23 have already been transferred to the UK. We are working closely with the French Government and NGOs, including on a joint communications campaign to inform migrants of their options and we provided a senior UK asylum official to the French Government who has put processes in place to support an efficient procedure.

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how the provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been used to (a) protect victims of slavery and (b) target traffickers.

    Karen Bradley

    The Act is already having a significant impact. All victims of modern slavery can now access the support they need. In 2015 alone, the police and CPS prosecuted 12 defendants using the new modern slavery offences and used Slavery and Trafficking Prevention and Risk Orders on at least 12 occasions. Over 100 businesses have published slavery and human trafficking statements. And the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is spreading best practice and helped to secure the UN’s first ever Goal to end modern slavery.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many employees in receipt of universal credit are paid (a) monthly on the same date each month, (b) monthly on the same day of the week in each month, (c) 4-weekly, (d) 2-weekly and (e) weekly.

    Damian Hinds

    The specific information requested could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

    Universal Credit is assessed and paid in a way that fits with the vast majority of claimants in work who are paid monthly. For a minority of cases, there will be instances where UC payments do not align with an individual’s wages, such as those who are paid 4-weekly.

    We have consulted and liaised with employers about Universal Credit and its interaction with labour market and employers processes and recommend, where they can, employers align with Universal Credit.

    We are currently implementing a test and learn approach to understand the interaction of Universal Credit and employer pay cycles and its effect on awards. This work will include discussions with employers.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the cost to the NHS of (a) foetal alcohol syndrome and (b) foetal alcohol syndrome disorders.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The Department has made no estimate of costs to the National Health Service for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD).

    The diagnosis for babies born with FAS may not be made easily at birth, and problems may present only later in childhood, for example at school. Estimates for the incidence of FASD are still more uncertain and relate to the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for these conditions.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-11-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress is being made on the accelerated access review for drugs for rare cancers; by what date he plans for that review to be concluded; and if he will set a deadline by which arrangements must be in place for the assessment of new drugs.

    George Freeman

    The Accelerated Access Review which was set up to look at speeding up access to innovative drugs including those for rare diseases, devices and diagnostics for National Health Service patients has been making strong progress since it was first announced in November 2014.

    The review which is independently chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor has been engaging stakeholders extensively over the summer to gather evidence on the big questions the review is considering, and has developed a number of emerging solutions.

    Sir Hugh published his interim report of the review on 27 October 2015. The report is high-level, direction-setting and grounded in evidence gathered through the review’s stakeholder engagement to date. The review is embarking on a second phase of engagement with stakeholders to further build the evidence, stress-test and refine the reports interim findings.

    The review will conclude with Sir Hugh making his final recommendations to Government by April 2016. The Government will thereafter consider how best to respond.