Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Steve Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Reed on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average time taken to complete a Disclosure and Barring Service check, including the time taken by the Metropolitan Police, was in London for each year since 2010.

    Karen Bradley

    The average times taken for the Disclosure and Barring Service to complete all Enhanced Disclosure applications for applicants with a London postcode are listed in the following table.

    Financial Year

    Average Turnaround Days

    2010/11

    50

    2011/12

    20

    2012/13

    12

    2013/14

    14

    2014/15

    19

    2015/16

    24
  • Emma Reynolds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Emma Reynolds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Reynolds on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, when he plans to start negotiations on a new trading relationship with the EU.

    Mr Robin Walker

    We need a UK approach and clear objectives for negotiations. It’s in everyone’s interests that we establish that before we trigger Article 50. The process for leaving the EU and determining our future relationship will clearly not be brief or straightforward, so we need to take time to think through our objectives and approach. We want to get the best deal for Britain, not the quickest one.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Luce on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many High Commissioners and Ambassadors initiate or participate in regular meetings with other Commonwealth representatives to discuss Commonwealth issues of common interest.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Many of our High Commissioners and some Ambassadors regularly meet with their counterparts from Commonwealth countries to discuss matters of shared interest and where they can work together to support Commonwealth values. Commonwealth Week in March is a particular focus for these meetings and Commonwealth activities. During the FCO’s Annual Leadership Week, the Minister for the Commonwealth convenes meetings for all our Commonwealth Heads of Mission to discuss Commonwealth affairs and how we can work together with other Member States to advance common priorities and tackle shared challenges.

  • Tim Loughton – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tim Loughton – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2015-10-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she expects to report on her review into the use of special guardianship orders; and which experts will assess submissions to that review.

    Edward Timpson

    The Department for Education expects to report on the review into the use of special guardianship orders by the end of the year.

    The findings of the review have been discussed extensively with an expert advisory group whose membership includes representatives from voluntary agencies for adoption, fostering and kinship care, local authorities, academics, ADCS and CAFCASS.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and The Times which found that contracts made by the Clinical Commissioning Groups with providers could financially benefit board members of the group.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have legal duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to manage conflicts of interests when deciding which health services to procure. CCGs must manage any actual or perceived conflicts in a way that is transparent, fair, and protects the integrity of their decision making.

    NHS England publishes guidance for CCGs on their responsibility to manage conflicts of interest. CCGs must have regard to this.

    Monitor must ensure that CCGs follow National Health Service regulations on procurement, patient choice and competition, and have powers of investigation if these are not followed.

    In their recent report ‘Managing conflicts of interest in NHS clinical commissioning groups’ (a copy of which is attached) the National Audit Office found that CCGs generally had arrangements in place to manage conflicts of interest to reduce the risk of commissioners’ decisions being improperly influenced.

    The NAO made recommendations to the Department, NHS England, Monitor and CCGs to strengthen current arrangements and we would expect the bodies concerned to consider these carefully and take appropriate action in response.

    Action is already being taken by NHS England including:

    ‒ strengthening its CCG assurance processes;

    ‒ commissioning an independent audit of conflicts of interest management in ten primary care co-commissioning arrangements, with a review to using the learning to strengthen current arrangements;

    ‒ providing training to CCG lay members on management of conflicts of interest in 2015, with more training planned for next year; and

    ‒ reviewing its own internal rules on conflicts of interest and the statutory guidance it issues to CCGs on management of conflicts of interest to ensure that arrangements are robust.

  • Edward Garnier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Edward Garnier – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Edward Garnier on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on the proposed fixed recoverable costs in the clinical negligence scheme.

    Ben Gummer

    One objective of the proposed fixed recoverable cost (FRC) regime is to improve the relationship between recoverable costs and damages paid. Looking at cases settled post Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 we have not noticed a significant impact on this relationship.

    The Department is currently preparing to go out to public consultation on the introduction of FRCs for clinical negligence claims as originally proposed by Lord Woolf and Lord Justice Jackson in 1996 and 2009 respectively. Respondents to the pre-consultation exercise in August confirmed that there is no exact correlation between value and complexity of clinical negligence claims. The consultation will include consideration of the maximum value of claims that will be covered by the FRC regime, whether there should be any exemptions; and thedate and method of implementation. The consultation is also looking at how behaviours can change to streamline and speed up the way in which clinical negligence claims are processed through the legal system. We, therefore, do not agree with the suggestion in the 9 November letter to delay the consultation whilst a review takes place.

  • Geraint Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Geraint Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geraint Davies on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will implement the provisions of the Pensions Act 2014 on removal of the cap to the Pension Protection Fund.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Government is committed to the implementation of the PPF long service cap. Before the primary legislation can be brought into force, a number of changes need to be made to secondary legislation, so that it will operate as expected in all cases. Therefore we cannot, at this time, commit to a particular implementation date.

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which railway stations currently owned by Network Rail are being considered for potential sale or new concessions.

    Claire Perry

    Network Rail is exploring new models for the management and ownership of its 18 managed stations with the goal of bringing improvements for both passengers and the communities they serve. They have engaged Citigroup as advisors to consider a range of potential options. No decisions have yet been taken and no estimate of the potential value of these stations has been made as part of this work. Citigroup were appointed following a competitive tender process, and the details of their fee are commercially confidential.

    Network Rail expect that this work will be presented to their Board by the end of 2016.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment she has made of which of her Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

    George Eustice

    The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

    The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

  • Graham Allen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Graham Allen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Allen on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether any of the dental practices trialling the new dental contract are located in (a) Nottingham North constituency, (b) Nottingham City or (c) local dental networks in that area.

    Alistair Burt

    The attached list provides details of the current 79 dental practices that have signed a prototype agreement. These practices will test a clinical care pathway focussed on preventing future dental disease which includes offering patients personalised care plans and advice on diets and good oral hygiene.

    The two practices marked with an asterisk (*) are located in Nottingham.