UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Baroness Deech – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Baroness Deech – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Deech on 2016-06-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 11 May (HL8116), whether the Deloitte auditors who determine the eligible Palestinian beneficiaries under the PEGASE mechanism are regulated by any British regulator.

    Baroness Verma

    Deloitte is a registered audit firm that employs certified public accountants who conduct their assignment in compliance with the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) standards.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what assessment he has made of the potential costs to the (a) financial sector, (b) legal services sector and (c) professional services sector of not having access to the EU Single Market.

    Mr David Jones

    The government is keenly aware of the importance of these sectors to the economy. The new department is undertaking a great deal of factual and detailed work to establish how best to deliver the government’s objectives, to ensure that we achieve the best possible outcome for the British people.

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much was spent per head on GP services in (a) Knowsley Clinical Commissioning Group area, (b) comparator clinical commissioning groups and (c) England in each of the last three years.

    David Mowat

    The tables below show average spend per registered patient on general practice services in Knowsley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and in England in each of the last three years for which data is available. Data broken down by comparator CCG is not held centrally.

    This data is taken from the NHS Payments to General Practice Reports published by NHS Digital. These payments are primarily monies paid through the National Health Applications and Infrastructure Services system, although the 2015/16 figures also captured some Local Enhanced Services payments that were made by CCGs.

    These payments do not necessarily represent all allocations for general practice as some funding is centrally managed. Due to additional funding collected this year and changes to the way the data has been collected, the data for different years are not directly comparable.

    NHS Knowsley CCG:

    Number of Registered Patients (Last Known Figure)

    Average Payment per Registered Patient

    Total NHS Payments to General Practice

    2013/14

    160,927

    £155.22

    £24,979,174.11

    2014/15

    161,223

    £158.32

    £25,524,243.86

    2015/16

    165,281

    £149.28

    £24,673,423.52

    England Totals:

    Number of Registered Patients (Last Known Figure)

    Average Payment per Registered Patient

    Total NHS Payments to General Practice

    2013/14

    56,111,165

    £136.00

    £7,631,679,946.16

    2014/15

    56,633,982

    £141.09

    £7,990,324,160.41

    2015/16

    57,371,518

    £142.62

    £8,182,561,838.04
  • Matthew Pennycook – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Matthew Pennycook – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many appeals by claimants in the work related activity group of employment and support allowance whose primary medical condition is a mental health condition have resulted in subsequent placement in the support group of employment and support allowance in each quarter since 2013.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The information as requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Charles Walker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Charles Walker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-11-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he or officials of his Department have had with Dr Salim Munayer and Musalah on prospects for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not had discussions specifically with Dr Salim Munayer and Musaleh on prospects for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine. However we fund several projects through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund which aim to foster reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. For example, we support the Peres Centre project to train Palestinian doctors in Israeli hospitals. This not only provides advanced training but also creates people to people relations.

  • Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-12-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 15 December (HL3615), in respect of each retention instrument, what were the reasons for deciding not to transfer records to the National Archives, and what was the subject matter of each instrument.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    As set out in the Public Records Act 1958 (as amended), public records selected for permanent preservation are transferred toThe National Archives or an approved place of deposit no later than 20 years after creation, unless an department is authorised to keep them for longer. Such decisions are undertakenwithadvice from the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives.

    The Access to Public Records Manual published by the National Archives sets out the seven broad grounds for retention, which is attached.

    Retention instruments can cover multiple applicationsby departments to retain records and the number of applications covered by Lord Chancellor’s Instruments 111-119 ranges from 37 to 253, which were submitted by between 8 and 15 departments.

    The grounds provided by departments that were given permission to retain records under Instruments 111, 113, 114 and 119 are 1,2,4 and 6. Records under Instruments 112, 115, 117 and 118 were retained on grounds 1, 4 and 6 and records under Instrument 116 were retained on grounds 4 and 6. Each of the Instruments therefore covers documents retained on grounds of national security, as well as other administrative reasons.

    There is a strong public interest in not releasing information which could undermine the safeguarding of national security.

  • Nigel Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nigel Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nigel Evans on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 19 January 2016 to Question 21839, what steps he is taking to ensure that engagement with the National Bowel Screening Programme continues to increase; and what (a) national and (b) local targets his Department has for such engagement.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS England, commissioners of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, closely monitor the coverage rates for bowel cancer screening in all eligible age groups and is committed to increasing uptake and reducing variation across England. Local NHS England commissioners analyse coverage rates within their area and seek to improve uptake by sharing best practice.

    The Independent Cancer Taskforce published its report, Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes in July last year, and recognised the importance of early diagnosis and screening. The taskforce recommended an ambition that 75% of people participate in bowel screening by 2020. To facilitate this change, they recommended a change to a new test, the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) which is an easier to use test than the current Faecal Occult Blood (FOB) test and improves uptake. On 15 January 2016 the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) announced the recommendations it made at its 19 November 2015 meeting. The UK NSC has recommended that FIT be used as the primary test for bowel cancer instead of the currently used FOB test. Ministers are now considering the UK NSC’s recommendation.

    Information on the average cost to the National Health Service of a colonoscopy performed following a positive screening test for bowel cancer is not held centrally. Information is available in the following table and is from reference costs, which are the average unit costs to NHS trusts and foundation trusts of providing defined services to patients. Reference costs for acute care are published by healthcare resource group (HRG), which are standard groupings of similar treatments that use similar resources.

    Estimated average unit cost of a diagnostic colonoscopy reported by NHS trusts and foundation trusts, 2014-15

    Procedure

    Average unit cost

    Diagnostic colonoscopy, 19 years and over

    £519

    Diagnostic colonoscopy with biopsy, 19 years and over

    £604

    Source: Reference costs, Department of Health

    Note:

    The unit costs shown are the average of costs reported across a range of settings including elective inpatient, non-elective inpatient, day case and regular day and night attenders.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the total cost to Network Rail was of acquiring the ownership of freight sites under Project Mountfield; and what overall revenue received by Network Rail from those sites in 2014-15.

    Claire Perry

    This was a commercial matter for Network Rail. I understand that the total cost to Network Rail of acquiring the ownership of freight sites under Project Mountfield was £220 million.

    The overall revenue figure for 2014/15 was £5.2 million which represents a 5 month period – November to March – given the transfer of sites occurred in October 2014.

    Network Rail is forecasting this to grow to £16 million per annum by 2017 alongside realising significant operational efficiencies.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to increase the skills of nurses relating to treatment of people with learning disabilities.

    Ben Gummer

    It is the responsibility of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to set the standards and outcomes for education and training and approve training curricula to ensure newly qualified nurses are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to provide high quality patient care. This includes training in awareness of learning disabilities.

    Higher Education Institutions are responsible for ensuring the programmes they provide allow healthcare students to meet the outcomes set out by the NMC upon graduation.

    Health Education England (HEE) has been working with NHS England and other national partners to set out a far-reaching plan to transform services for people with a learning disability, to make significant and lasting improvements to their care and lives. At present, this is particularly focused on supporting the transforming care programme and scaling and spreading the lessons learnt from engagement with fast-track sites.

    The Department has commissioned Skills for Health, Skills for Care and HEE to develop a Learning Disabilities Core Skills Education and Training Framework which will be launched in May and is aimed at all health and social care workers who have not received training in learning disabilities, especially those nurses from other fields of nursing such as adult, children and mental health nurses.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they track executive pay; and whether they collect data on what percentage of Long Term Incentive Plans were changed for FTSE 100 companies when performance changed negatively.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Executive pay has risen significantly since 1998 and the link between top pay and company performance has sometimes been weak. That is why the executive pay reforms brought in by the Government in 2013 included measures to clarify the links between pay and performance as well as giving shareholders a stronger say. Company remuneration policies (on which shareholders now have a binding vote at least every three years), for example, must include information on how directors’ pay is linked to different levels of performance. In addition, the Annual Remuneration Report, which sets out what directors have been paid in the past financial year, has to set out clearly how the actual payments made relate to performance.

    It is too soon to form firm conclusions about the impact of the 2013 reforms. Executive pay is typically set on a three year cycle and the reforms have not yet reached their third anniversary. However, there is growing evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are prepared to use the new powers, particularly where pay is out of line with company performance.

    The Government does not track executive pay across the more than 1,000 companies subject to the Regulations. We do however work closely with independent researchers that regularly survey the level and structure of pay, such as Manifest, and with key stakeholders such as the Investment Association and the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that we have access to the evidence needed to keep executive pay under review.