UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when his Department’s guidance to overseas missions on hospitality for senior UK figures was last reviewed.

    Mr David Lidington

    Overseas Missions provide hospitality to guests to support the Government’s objectives overseas.

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s guidance to staff on visits by Parliamentarians to our posts overseas was reviewed and updated in 2015.

  • Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2016-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what recent discussions her Department has had with HM Treasury on the level of VAT on energy saving materials.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Decisions on VAT are led by HM Treasury, and the Department has been in regular contact with them regarding the consultation on changes to the application of VAT on energy saving materials.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislative provision OFWAT is able to waive the need for a public procurement process for lawyers and financiers for the Thames Tideway Tunnel for services contracts with fees of open-ended value, in the light of the limit for services contracts under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 of £345,028.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The statutory provision is regulation 6(8) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582) ("the SIP Regulations"). This confers a power on Ofwat to waive the requirement imposed on a licensed infrastructure provider (being Tideway, in respect of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project) to put certain contracts out to tender under a modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 as set in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the SIP Regulations. Tideway is neither a contracting authority nor a utility within the meaning of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and so is not subject to the normal procurement rules.

    Following a public consultation, Ofwat issued two notices under this provision that waived Tideway’s obligation to comply with the modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations in certain limited and defined circumstances. The second notice issued by Ofwat provided Tideway with a narrow exemption for certain specified professional services relating to their financing and corporate arrangements, and only to the extent that those services will be paid for by its shareholders rather than customers.

  • Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to paragraph 119 of the Teaching excellence framework: technical consultation for year two, published by his Department on 16 May 2016, how the estimates for the performance metrics were reached; whether there is scope for making adjustments to those estimates in the future; whether those estimates will be used as part of formal guidance for the operation of the teaching excellence framework; and if he will publish the methodological framework and evidence for how those estimates were reached.

    Joseph Johnson

    In developing our proposals for the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) we used a set of indicative metrics, with data constructed using the methods set out in Chapter 2 of the TEF: Technical Consultation for Year Two. The statement that providers will fall into a bell curve was based on observing the number of providers with positive and negative significance flags against the core metrics.

    The actual TEF assessments will be made against the most recent data which we anticipate will follow a broadly similar pattern. As stated in the Technical Consultation, we expect the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to construct the guidance to assessors in such a way that will lead to a distribution similar to that set out in paragraph 119; however, assessors will not be obligated to check that the awards follow this distribution, only that they have followed the guidance.

    Our consultation response will outline the final metrics and HEFCE guidance will set out the detailed methodology of how the metrics are constructed.

  • Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the average length of time is for children to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders in (a) England and (b) West Lancashire.

    David Mowat

    This information is not collected centrally.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published a guideline on the recognition, referral and diagnosis of autism in under 19s. This recommends that an assessment for autism is begun within three months of referral.

  • Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the value of artefacts illegally salvaged from the site of HMS Warrior since the discovery of the wreck in September 2016.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) has carried out the following investigations (taking “disturbances” to mean thefts or alleged thefts and not limited to shipwrecks) under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986:

    YEAR

    2010

    1

    2011

    6

    2012

    1

    2013

    0

    2014

    0

    2015

    1

    The MDP has not received any information related to the illegal salvage of material from HMS Warrior.

    By invoking the principle of Sovereign Immunity, and by designating specific vessels under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, we endeavour to protect these important sites where we are able. Where we have definitive evidence of desecration of these sites, we will take appropriate action. However, it should be appreciated that, given the large number of Royal Navy wrecks around the world and the vast area they cover, there are limitations on what can be achieved with regard to protection.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Barry Sheerman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to reduce the number of false personal injury claims.

    Dominic Raab

    This Government is building on the significant reforms of the coalition Government to tackle fraudulent and unnecessary personal injury claims. We are looking forward to receiving the recommendations of the Insurance Fraud Taskforce later this year and will announce further reform in this important area in due course.

  • Tom Elliott – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Tom Elliott – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Elliott on 2015-11-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how much of the Stormont Agreement’s financial package of £2 billion in extra spending power to the Northern Ireland Executive is a loan to be paid back to the Government by the Executive.

    Mr Ben Wallace

    Through the Stormont House Agreement the Government committed to allow the Executive to use £700 million of Reinvestment and Reform Initiative (RRI) capital borrowing to fund Voluntary Exit Schemes (VES). The Executive expect full implementation of VES to deliver around £500 million in annual savings, which can be deployed to other public services.

    The Government also agreed to allow the Executive increased access to RRI borrowing to fund £350 million of capital projects, over four years. This funding is for economic projects.

  • John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the size is of the area of land available for the direct commissioning site for housing at Lower Grayling Well.

    Brandon Lewis

    The planning process is ongoing for these sites. This will be completed in due course working closely with the local communities and local authorities.

  • Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans the Government has to introduce a prostate cancer screening programme.

    Jane Ellison

    The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) recently examined and consulted upon the international peer reviewed evidence regarding prostate cancer screening. The UK NSC recommended against a systematic population screening programme for prostate cancer. This is because the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not an accurate enough test for prostate cancer. Additionally, the UK NSC identified that there is still an incomplete understanding of which prostate cancers are aggressive and require treatment and which are safe to actively monitor. There is a significant amount of research activity underway, but currently the evidence suggests that a systematic screening programme would do more harm than good.