UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Earl Baldwin of Bewdley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Earl Baldwin of Bewdley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley on 2016-02-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 19 January (HL Deb, col 641) about the potential fortification of bread with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects in pregnancy, why they do not apply the argument around choice and whether or not it is right to medicate the entire population for the benefit of a fairly small part of it” to the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent caries.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    It has been the policy of successive governments that decisions on water fluoridation are best taken locally. There is a duty to consult the local population where local authorities propose the establishment of a new water fluoridation scheme. Some areas of the country have water supplies that naturally contain levels of fluoride similar to the target level for water fluoridation schemes where the levels are adjusted.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what research has been commissioned by his Department into the effects of the extension of Sunday opening hours in each year for which data is available.

    Anna Soubry

    In 2006 Indepen were commissioned by the DTI to evaluate the economic costs and benefits of extending Sunday Trading hours, a copy of the report can be found on the GOV.UK website.

    My Department has not commissioned any research since then into the effects of the extension of Sunday opening hours.

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-03-21.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of a reduction in VAT for small businesses in the tourism sector.

    Mr David Gauke

    The Government has reviewed the economic case for a reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector.

    In our view there is insufficient evidence to justify a reduction in VAT.

    Reducing VAT on all tourism related activities would have a potential cost in excess of £10 billion in the first year alone.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the findings of the Annual Report 2015 of the Service Complaints Ombudsmen for the Armed Forces, what steps he is taking to reduce the reluctance of service personnel to raise complaints through the service complaints system.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Service Complaints Ombudsman’s annual report for 2015 was published on 25 April 2016. Whilst there are no recommendations in this year’s report, given the introduction of a reformed complaints system and a fundamentally new Ombudsman role, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is curently considering the report in detail to see what lessons there are for the complaints process or wider policies.

    The aim of the reforms introduced on 1 January 2016 is to address long-standing concerns raised by the Service Complaints Commissioner that confidence in the system has been affected by complexity which has led to delay and by a lack of strong independent and effective oversight. Such a lack of confidence can in turn leave our personnel reluctant to raise issues and so have them resolved. The new process is streamlined, and Service personnel will now be able to approach the new Service Complaints Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied, which will make a real difference for individuals. The Ombudsman has significant new powers to hold the MOD to account for fair, effective and efficient complaints handllng. The Ombudsman comments in her report that she is hopeful that the new system will make a real impact on confidence levels. The MOD shares that view, and looks forward to the Ombudsman’s 2016 report for her assessment of whether the aims are being achieved.

    It is important that all Service personnel know where to get information about how to make a service complaint, as well as about the role of the new Service Complaints Ombudsman and how to contact her. We will take further steps to communicate as widely as possible through appropriate channels the role of the new Ombudsman, particularly to junior personnel, which will supplement and support the visits undertaken and communication material produced by the Ombudsman.

    Bullying, harassment and discrimination are not tolerated in the Armed Forces. Tackling such behaviour depends on our Service personnel having confidence that the complaints system will deal with their concerns appropriately and will treat them fairly. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will hold the MOD to account for how it handles complaints and how it treats its Service personnel under the complaints process. It is by raising complaints and approaching the Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied that complainants can ensure that the MOD is openly held to account. It is also through the Ombudsman’s recommendations that the MOD can identify where action needs to be taken to improve.

    The finding by the Service Complaints Ombudsman that proportionately more women feel moved to make a Service complaint than their male colleagues is a concern. The Ombudsman goes on to commend the work that is being done by the Army in particular, where the issue is the most acute, to tackle this. The initiatives that she sets out in the report are continuing.

    It is the responsibility of all those involved in the service complaints process to ensure complaints are handled effectively and efficiently. All complaints are to be dealt with promptly but fairly, regardless of the complainant’s rank or whether they are still serving. There have been no discussions with the Chief of the Defence Staff on the issues raised.

  • James Cartlidge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    James Cartlidge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by James Cartlidge on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what progress her Department has made on creating a £10 million fund for small schools to secure expert support and advice on converting to academy status.

    Edward Timpson

    This Government recognises the particular challenges facing small and rural schools and is committed to supporting them. We have announced a package of measures to guarantee the continued success of these schools, including £10 million to secure expert support and advice. Details on how this will be administered, and further information, will be available in due course.

  • Clive Efford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Clive Efford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Efford on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assurances he has received from Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group that the £12 million saving promised by Circle Holdings plc as part of its successful bid for the contract to provide musculoskeletal services will not affect the quality of services to patients; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The procurement of local health services by means of competitive tendering is a matter for the local National Health Service.

    We are advised that NHS Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) undertook a review of the provision of musculoskeletal (MSK) services in the area in 2014, involving local general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, other MSK clinicians and patient groups. The CCG took account of this exercise in confirming its commissioning intentions for an integrated MSK service pathway. The CCG subsequently held a GP clinical commissioner-led provider engagement event on 2 March 2016 to seek feedback on the clinical service specification and the proposed contractual model.

    We understand that, as part of the procurement process, the MSK Programme Board was fully apprised of the Our Healthier South East London initiative, the predecessor to the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) in respect of elective orthopaedic centres.

    We are advised that the Invitation to Tender (ITT) developed as part of the procurement exercise explicitly stated the aspirations of these two initiatives, in addition to the proposed implementation timeline. When submitting their bids, all prospective providers were required to confirm their understanding and acceptance of the planned new model of in-patient care. Patient choice continues to apply with regard to both this local procurement and the South East London STP proposals on elective care centres.

    We understand that the ITT issued to potential service providers, was divided into sections, with each section allocated a weighting. The financial weighting was designed to ensure that the selection of the preferred provider was driven by clinical quality scores whilst remaining within the CCG’s published financial envelope. The detailed clinical service specification will be used to hold the provider to account within the format of the NHS national standard contract.

    Health Ministers have not received any representations from local health practitioners in Greenwich with regard to the provision of MSK services in the area.

  • Grant Shapps – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Grant Shapps – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grant Shapps on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much private funding has been secured for the High Speed 2 project from major corporate beneficiaries to date.

    Andrew Jones

    No private funding contributions have been secured for HS2 to date.

  • Mary Creagh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Mary Creagh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Creagh on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether he plans to revise his Department’s position on the European Commission’s Green Paper on safety of tourism accommodation services to take account of the recent coroner’s report on the death of Christi and Bobby Shepherd.

    Tracey Crouch

    The deaths of Christi and Bobby Shepherd were a horrific tragedy and our deepest condolences remain with their parents. The safety of tourists at home and abroad is an absolute priority and we will continue to keep the area under review.

    The Government is currently examining the Coroner’s recommendations from the inquest into the children’s deaths and will respond in due course.

  • Lord Moonie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Moonie – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Moonie on 2015-12-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much NHS England pays for paracetamol, and how much paracetamol it procures annually.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    NHS England has advised that it does not procure paracetamol. This is done by dispensing contractors in primary care and by hospital trusts in secondary care.

  • Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Frank Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-01-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the average time taken is by (a) Concentrix and (b) HM Revenue and Customs to process each tax credit claim adjustment; and what guidance there is in Concentrix’s contract on how long it should take to process each tax credit claim adjustment.

    Mr David Gauke

    The average time taken by Concentrix to carry out a tax credit intervention – from writing to the claimant, receiving and investigating any response, through to closing the case and making any adjustment to the award – is 91 days. The average time taken by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is 64 days, but the figures are not comparable because the profiles of cases worked by Concentrix and by HMRC are different.

    Concentrix are required under their contract with HMRC to complete 80% of High Risk Change of Circumstances interventions (these are a subset of Concentrix’s caseload consisting of the highest risk cases) within 75 days and 100% of such cases within 90 days. So far in 2015/16 they have closed 95.5% of these interventions within 75 days.