Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 6 June 2016 to Question 38191 on fertility: medical treatments, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the issues highlighted in the report in that Answer; and if he will write to clinical commissioning groups in England to highlight the findings of that report and the importance of delivering IVF services consistent with the NICE guidelines.

    Jane Ellison

    It is for clinical commission groups (CCGs) to decide locally the extent to which fertility treatment is offered. CCGs’ decisions should be underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services may vary in response to local needs. NHS England has general intervention powers in relation to CCGs, should it be satisfied that a CCG is failing or has failed to discharge any of its functions, or there is a significant risk that it will fail to do so. It is also NHS England’s role to provide support and guidance to CCGs.

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Farron on 2016-09-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has plans to improve the quality of Lyme disease tests.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Health Service and Public Health England (PHE) use well established validated diagnostic tests for Lyme disease that are highly reproducible between laboratories. International External Quality Assurance schemes are in place to ensure consistency between different tests centres.

    However, Lyme disease is a complex infection; we recognise that there are real challenges in diagnosis and we are further strengthening the evidence base. Commercial manufacturers and international academic groups have research programmes into improved tests. PHE continuously reviews new Lyme serology tests and will validate and implement new tests if appropriate.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the total cost to the public purse to date is of defending legal action against HM Government in all courts on the expulsion and right of resettlement for the population of the Chagos Islands.

    Sir Alan Duncan

    The costs paid by the Government for defending these legal actions to date are approximately £2,660,000.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-10-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the construction of four commercial nuclear power reactors for the United Arab Emirates by a South Korean consortium with a total capacity of 5.6 GWe at cost of £14 billion, in the light of their plans for nuclear generation at Hinkley Point.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The Government does not make direct comparisons between projects in different circumstances that have different contracts and are situated in different markets.

    There has been a thorough review of the costs of the Hinkley Point C project to ensure that the contract represents value for money. Hinkley will provide reliable low carbon energy for around 60 years and offer 25,000 jobs during construction. My rt. hon Friend the Secretary of State expects to be in a position to take her final decision on the Contract for Difference and associated agreements for Hinkley Point C once the documentation relating to equity investment into the project is finalised.

  • Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Burt of Solihull on 2015-11-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding will be provided to assist with the delivery of their commitment to double the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education by 2020.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    We will be issuing a grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England early in the New Year outlining the Government’s priorities for expenditure through the teaching grant, including on widening access. This will take account of the announcements made in the Spending Review on. The Director of Fair Access has agreed 183 Access Agreements for 2016/17 containing an estimated £745m to support the access and success of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, up from £404m in 2009/10.

  • Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Chapman on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 11 of the Op HERRICK (Afghanistan) Aircraft Statistics document, published on 29 October 2015, how many of the 68 strikes made using the Dual Mode Brimstone missile during operation HERRICK were completed with the aid of ground-based HUMINT.

    Penny Mordaunt

    We do not comment on intelligence matters I am therefore withholding the information as its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or Security of the Armed Forces.

  • Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ritchie on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how her Department works with other governments to tackle internet harassment and trolling perpetrated by residents of other countries on UK citizens.

    Karen Bradley

    Legislation is in place to deal with internet trolls, cyber-stalking and harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour.

    The Criminal Justice Act 2015, strengthened legislation in respect of two communications offences which can be used to prosecute misuse of social media: section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These amendments provide the police with additional time to investigate these offences, and increasing the maximum penalty for the former to two years imprisonment. We are continuing to invest in law enforcement capabilities at the national, regional and local levels to ensure delivery agencies have the capacity to deal with the increasing volume and sophistication of online crime. We have boosted the capabilities of the National Crime Agency’s National Cyber Crime Unit (NCCU), which has led and will continue to lead operations to disrupt serious cyber crime at scale, both domestically and internationally. This includes joint operations with industry and international law enforcement partners globally, to disrupt cyber criminals and protect UK citizens.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment the Government has made of the effect on the care industry of the implementation of the living wage.

    Alistair Burt

    Out of an estimated 1.52 million adult social care jobs in England, up to 900,000 people are expected to benefit from the introduction of the National Living Wage.

    More widely across the sector, higher productivity and better-quality care through efficiency would benefit employers and care home residents and there is potential for improvements in staff retention if higher wages engendered greater job commitment.

    The Department continues to work in collaboration with delivery partners to support effective recruitment practices and improved retention of the care workforce.

    Our assessment of the effect of the National Living Wage for the Spending Review drew on projections and data on pay including information from the Office of Budget Responsibility and Skills for Care.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what wage the Government plans to pay civil servant apprentices.

    Matthew Hancock

    Pay below the Senior Civil Service is delegated to Departments and agencies, including for apprenticeships. There is also no single apprenticeship grade. Apprentices on the Civil Service Fast Track are paid at least £19,500 (£22,000 in London).

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-04-08.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph A.23 of the Economic and fiscal outlook of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Cm 9212, published in March 2016, what steps he has taken to increase HM Revenue and Custom’s yields from tax repatriation from British overseas territories.

    Mr David Gauke

    The Government is absolutely committed to exposing and acting on financial wrongdoing and we relentlessly pursue tax evaders.

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought in more than £2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010 and the government has repeatedly strengthened our powers so we can take even tougher action against those who try to cheat the honest majority by hiding their money in offshore tax havens.

    The Government has led a transformation in global tax transparency which, from this year, will see HMRC start to automatically receive offshore account and trust data from more than 90 countries, including British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. This will further increase HMRC’s ability to crack down on those still hiding their money offshore.

    The Government is further pushing for full and effective transparency for UK law enforcement to have access to beneficial ownership information of companies from all its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

    The Government has also introduced tough new powers and game-changing measures to tackle offshore and onshore tax evasion, and as recently as the summer Budget 2015 gave HMRC an additional £800 million to invest in compliance and tax evasion work.

    This is expected to recover £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years and includes tripling the number of criminal investigations that HMRC can undertake into serious and complex tax crime, focusing particularly on wealthy individuals and corporates, with the aim of achieving 100 prosecutions a year by the end of the Parliament.

    The new powers and measures include:

    • Higher financial penalties for those hiding money and other assets offshore, such as, for the first time, linking the penalty to the value of the asset kept offshore. These are in addition to existing measures which already allow for fines of up to 300% of any tax found to have been evaded offshore.

    • New civil penalties for those who deliberately enable offshore evasion so they will face the same penalty as the tax evader.

    • Public naming of both evaders and those who enable evasion.

    • A new criminal offence for corporations that fail to prevent their representatives from facilitating tax evasion. The new offence, which will be legislated for this year, will ensure that corporations exercise due diligence over the services they provide, and ensure that those who don’t can be held to account.

    • A new strict liability criminal offence for offshore evasion, which we are currently legislating for – so in the worst cases it’s no longer possible to plead ignorance in an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution.