Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Turnberg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Turnberg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Turnberg on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether NHS England will seek advice from specialist gastrointestinal disease societies following the removal of the role of National Clinical Director for that area.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    In future, NHS England will seek clinical advice on issues relating to gastrointestinal and liver disease from a variety of sources. This will include experts at Public Health England (PHE) for issues which are alcohol related, the National Clinical Director for Obesity and Diabetes for issues relating to obesity induced fatty liver disease as well as through the Clinical Reference Group for hepatitis C and the medical Royal Colleges.

    Information on liver and gastrointestinal (GI) diseases is also available from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, PHE Atlases of variation, relevant national audits and regular clinical communication between the national Medical Director, his senior team and the relevant Royal Colleges and specialist societies and with senior professionals.

    NHS England continues to run an Endoscopy Stakeholder Group to ensure that all aspects of diagnostic pathways for GI disease are reviewed and clinical advice is taken regarding policy developments to address the current and projected requirement in capacity. The relevant specialist societies are key members of this group. NHS England also supports the national Cancer Implementation Programme on behalf of the arm’s length bodies, which includes workstreams on early diagnosis, and on living with and beyond cancer, both of which are addressing many issues that affect patients with GI cancers.

    Health Education England will continue to ensure that they engage with employers to forecast how many gastroenterologists they require year on year. The process for making decisions relating to medical training numbers is currently being refined. Medical speciality training post numbers will be reviewed in greater depth with a range of stakeholders on a rolling programme; approximately every two years. Gastroenterology is expected to be reviewed this winter.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many companies have disclosed information to Companies House on persons with significant control in their company as part of their company register since 6 April 2016.

    Margot James

    As at 10 October 2016, the total number of companies that have disclosed information on people with significant control (PSC) for the period 6 April to 10 October is 779,043.

  • Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Brendan MacNeil on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the average time taken is for customers to switch their domestic energy supplier.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Ofgem published data on average switching time for domestic customers in Great Britain. It is available online at https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/chart/average-switching-time-domestic-customers-gb

    On 1 June 2015 (latest published data available) the average switching time for domestic electricity supplies was 15.7 days and 15.5 days for gas.

    “

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Catherine McKinnell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 19 November 2015 to Question 15443, for what reason the (a) Government Legal Department’s expenditure on temporary agency staff and (b) Crown Prosecution Service’s expenditure on (i) consultants and (ii) non-payroll staff increased between 2010-11 and 2014-15.

    Robert Buckland

    The Government Legal Department (GLD) provides legal services to government. It engages temporary and contract staff as a way of managing short term variations in demand. Where an increase in demand for legal services is expected to continue for the medium or long term, the department will use temporary staff to resource the work until permanent staff can be recruited. The increase in temporary staff from 2010-11 to 2014-15 reflects increased demand for legal services and the growth of GLD as a result of the Shared Legal Services programme that has brought into one organisation legal teams from across government. As a result overall staff numbers have increased by 69% between 2010-11 and 2014-15.

    As outlined in the previous answer the actual expenditure incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on consultants and non-payroll staff between 2010-11 and 2014-15 was as follows.

    Year

    Consultants

    Non-payroll staff

    2010/11

    £684,314

    £392,968

    2011/12

    £13,347

    £23,355

    2012/13

    £9,793

    £2,861

    2013/14

    £960

    £273,935

    2014/15

    £0

    £1,350,317

    Between 2010-11 and 2014-15 the CPS has actually reduced its expenditure on consultants by £684,314.

    In 2014-15 the CPS set up a project to manage the transition from its existing main Information Technology service provider. The Project Manager and remaining team are non-CPS staff, and their costs of £1,350,317 were the only non-payroll staff costs incurred last year.

  • Lord Greaves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Greaves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2016-01-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the £20 million of funding for providing English tuition for speakers of other languages announced by the Prime Minister is new money, and if so, from which budget heading it will come; whether that additional provision will be available for (1) both Muslim men and women who come to the UK on spousal visas and whose English requires improvement; (2) persons of other religions, and none, who come to the UK on spousal visas; (3) persons who are living in the UK by virtue of other kinds of permissions, such as other types of visas or following applications for asylum; (4) Muslim women and other persons who have come to the UK from other countries in the EU; and (5) UK citizens, whether or not they are Muslims; and whether that additional provision will be restricted according to how long a person has lived in the UK or their age.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The £20 million community-based English language training offer is new funding which will be routed through DCLG and will form part of its Integration Programme. The detail of how the programme will be designed, targeted and delivered will be informed by the findings of Louise Casey’s Review into boosting opportunity and integration amongst isolated groups and the learning from the six community projects we have funded as part of our current Integration Programme. In particular, we will work with Louise Casey to identify the most isolated communities in England to make sure this programme is targeted at those women who need it most. We are working to deliver as early a launch date as possible for the programme in 2016/17.

  • The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many NHS and Public Health England laboratories that carry out Lyme borreliosis testing (1) are, and (2) are not, ISO 15189 accredited; and when they expect the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory to be so accredited.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) or NHS England do not hold information about which laboratories are and are not International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 accredited. A list of accredited laboratories is held on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) website and is the definitive list of accredited laboratories to which the Department, PHE and the NHS refer. Accreditation is covered by the Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) company until recently, and is now part of the UKAS scheme.

    There is no intention to transfer the Lyme disease testing service from the Rare & Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) to another laboratory. RIPL as a department will move from the Porton site as part of the PHE relocation scheduled to commence in 2018 but no decision on the exact date has been made. RIPL is scheduled to transfer to ISO 15189 in late summer 2016, when the ISO inspection team review the tests offered by the laboratory under ISO 15189. Until that time, the laboratory is operating under CPA in accordance with the transition process laid down by ISO.

  • Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 2016-03-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether relatives of foreign nationals murdered in the UK are entitled to compensation from them, and if so, how much compensation they have paid since 2010.

    Lord Faulks

    The Government provides two compensation schemes for victims of crime, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (the Scheme) 2012 and the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme (VOTCS) 2012. Both schemes are administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).

    The Scheme is designed to compensate blameless victims of violent crime where the incident took place in Great Britain or a “relevant place” as outlined in Annex C of the scheme. Close relatives of a British citizen may also be eligible for compensation under the scheme. Under the Scheme compensation is only available to those who can demonstrate they are ordinarily resident in the UK at the time of the incident or have another defined connection to the UK.

    In fatal cases, compensation may be awarded to qualifying relatives who also satisfy the Scheme’s residency criteria. The meaning of qualifying relative is outlined in paragraph 59 of the Scheme. The CICA does not keep information on the nationality of the deceased in fatal applications, so we cannot identify the amount of compensation paid.

    Compensation for relatives of British nationals murdered abroad is not available under the two schemes provided by the Government. UK residents injured as a result of a crime of violence in another country within the European Union (EU) or outside the EU may be able to apply for compensation from that country. The CICA can assist with applications to other EU countries.

    The VOTCS was introduced to compensate victims of terrorism injured in incidents outside the UK on or after 27 November 2012. A person may be eligible for an award under VOTCS if they sustain a qualifying injury, which is directly attributable to their being a direct victim of a designated terrorist act. Close relatives bereaved as a result of a designated act may also be eligible for an award. The VOTCS applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Claims under the VOTCS can be made by those who have a clear and sufficient connection to the UK, as evidenced by their residence and citizenship. British, European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss citizens who have been resident in the UK for three years immediately before the designated act may be eligible for an award. Data on the value of awards made under VOTCS from 2013 to 2016 are set in the table below.

    Year

    Amount of awards

    2013

    £206,607

    2014

    £11,200

    2015

    £309,541

    2016

    £11,000

    Total

    £538,348
  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-04-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Freud on 22 March (HL6812) about state benefits, why they have not made an assessment of the percentage of food poverty or insecurity that is caused by state benefits being used for purposes other than to provide necessities; and whether they will now carry one out.

    Lord Freud

    Food poverty is the inability of individuals and households to obtain an adequate and nutritious diet, often because they cannot afford healthy food or there is a lack of shops in their area that are easy to reach. There is no single commonly agreed method for accurately measuring the extent of food poverty. Given these challenges we do not think that it would be worth the Department commissioning such research.

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

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for what statutory reasons (a) a resident of a care home may be evicted and (b) a relative of a person in a care home may be banned from visiting; and what evidence must be provided in each such case.

    Alistair Burt

    It is for providers of care to decide if they are no longer able to meet a person’s needs, or whether, for example for reasons of safety, it might be appropriate for a person to be prevented from visiting a care home.

    Such decisions should be taken according to individual circumstances and with regard to the terms of agreements and/or contracts between providers and purchasers or commissioners of care.

  • 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 2016-07-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Answer of 12 May 2016 to Question 36723 on Revenue and Customs, if he will list all the teams within each of the five HM Revenue and Customs’ business areas.

    Mr David Gauke

    The teams within each of the five HM Revenue and Customs’ business areas are in the table attached..