UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-06-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 6 June (HL320), what assessment they have made of the effects on Turkey’s candidate status for accession to the EU of the recent resolution of the German Parliament declaring the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 and 1916 an act of genocide.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Government recognises the horrific suffering inflicted on the Armenian people and other groups living in the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th Century. The Government’s policy is that the recognition of genocide is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. The Government believes that the priority today should be to promote reconciliation between the peoples and Governments of Turkey and Armenia.

  • Flick Drummond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Flick Drummond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Flick Drummond on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of wheelchair access at sports venues.

    Tracey Crouch

    I refer my honourable friend to my answer to question 44837, answered on 7th September.

  • Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to improve the service quality provided by call handlers who respond to NHS 111 and 999 calls; and what funding he plans to allocate to those services in the next five years.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The service quality provided by call handlers who respond to 999 and 111 calls is the responsibility of local providers of these services.

    Computer-aided dispatch and clinical decision support systems are used to guide call handers through 999 and 111 calls. These systems have embedded clinical governance processes which keep them under continual internal evidence based review.

    In the future, the 111 phone number will be the “front door” to a 24/7 integrated urgent care service. It will provide access to a ‘clinical hub’ which offers patients access to a wide range of clinicians supported by access to clinical records.

    National Health Service ambulance trusts (who operate 999 call handling services) and providers of NHS111 services are commissioned and funded locally by NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). CCGs work with these providers to take decisions on funding on a yearly basis.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has held with the government of Nigeria on the situation in Biafra.

    James Duddridge

    The UK fully supports the territorial integrity of Nigeria and President Buhari’s commitment to work for a secure and prosperous Nigeria for all Nigerians. President Buhari has recently concluded the appointment of a new Government. We will continue to underline the importance of freedom of expression and acting in accordance with the rule of law with all parties, including the new Nigerian government.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the reasons in the discrepancy between the proportion of granted asylum claims which are made to people from Pakistan and the proportion of applicants under the detained fast-track procedure who are from that country.

    James Brokenshire

    The basis of an individual’s asylum claim is not recorded on Home Office systems. It is not therefore possible to differentiate Pakistani applicants claiming for reasons of religious persecution and discrimination from Pakistani applicants claiming for one or more other reasons in the Detained Fast Track (DFT) or the non-detained process.

    Certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not requested by an applicant. It is applied by the Secretary of State in circumstances where the applicant’s claim is refused and considered to be so lacking in merit as to be clearly unfounded.

    The number of initial certified refusals for Pakistan main asylum applicants, from year ending September 2013 to year ending September 2015, was 604. The Home Office publishes data on asylum applications and decisions on a quarterly and annual basis. The information supplied on certified refusals is based on initial decisions which do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

    No assessment has been made of any difference that might exist between grant rates in respect of Pakistani applicants in the DFT process when it operated, and cases entering the non-detained process at the same time. However, as the DFT process avoided claims involving particular complexity and/or vulnerability, and prioritised cases which appeared to be late or opportunistic, it is to be expected that the DFT would have fewer grants than the non-detained process.

  • Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make provision to apply fixed recoverable costs across the range of fast-track cases, and in the lower reaches of the multi-track, as recommended by the judiciary and referred to in the Lord Chief Justice’s Review of the Administration of Justice in the Courts of 2015.

    Lord Faulks

    The Government remains supportive of the principle of extending fixed recoverable costs and we continue to consider areas in which implementation might be appropriate and workable.

  • Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Murrison on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on which dates (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department have met with BT to discuss separating Openreach from its parent company.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    This is a matter for the independent telecoms regulator, Ofcom, who is currently reviewing the markets for digital communications in the UK and is due to report at the end of this month. Government has no role in this process.

  • 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 2016-03-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many offenders have been sentenced and imprisoned in the UK after having been returned to the UK under a European Arrest Warrant.

    Lord Faulks

    This information is not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    The National Crime Agency publishes statistics on the operation of the European Arrest Warrant. These can be found on their website.

  • Adam Holloway – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Adam Holloway – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Adam Holloway on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans his Department has to deploy the armed forces in Libya to provide security for the Libyan Government of National Accord.

    Michael Fallon

    Multinational planning, in which the UK has played a supporting role, is focused on training Libyan security forces to provide their own security to the new Libyan government and Libyan people.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England guidance is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return, so that patients are not waiting on ‘hidden’ lists.

    Furthermore, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) also assesses providers against the new fundamental standards of safety and quality below which care should never fail. One of these standards requires that care and treatment must be appropriate and reflect service users’ needs and preferences. Another requires that care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The CQC will require a provider to improve where it is not meeting these standards.

    No assessment has been made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times, as the risks will also vary between services, specialties and patients. It is for clinicians to make these judgements.

    The information requested on delays to review outpatient appointments is not collected centrally.