Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-03-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department has taken to carry out practical tests on the effect of a drone flying into a jet engine.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Commercial aircraft are already rigorously tested to withstand collisions with small objects, such as birds, but my Department and the Civil Aviation Authority are working with the aviation sector, including manufacturers, airports and airlines, to ensure our understanding of the potential hazards to aircraft remains up-to-date. This activity is also helping to provide real life evidence of drone risks and the options for preventing collisions.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-04-08.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph A.23 of the Economic and fiscal outlook of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Cm 9212, published in March 2016, what steps he has taken to increase HM Revenue and Custom’s yields from tax repatriation from British overseas territories.

    Mr David Gauke

    The Government is absolutely committed to exposing and acting on financial wrongdoing and we relentlessly pursue tax evaders.

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought in more than £2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010 and the government has repeatedly strengthened our powers so we can take even tougher action against those who try to cheat the honest majority by hiding their money in offshore tax havens.

    The Government has led a transformation in global tax transparency which, from this year, will see HMRC start to automatically receive offshore account and trust data from more than 90 countries, including British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. This will further increase HMRC’s ability to crack down on those still hiding their money offshore.

    The Government is further pushing for full and effective transparency for UK law enforcement to have access to beneficial ownership information of companies from all its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

    The Government has also introduced tough new powers and game-changing measures to tackle offshore and onshore tax evasion, and as recently as the summer Budget 2015 gave HMRC an additional £800 million to invest in compliance and tax evasion work.

    This is expected to recover £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years and includes tripling the number of criminal investigations that HMRC can undertake into serious and complex tax crime, focusing particularly on wealthy individuals and corporates, with the aim of achieving 100 prosecutions a year by the end of the Parliament.

    The new powers and measures include:

    • Higher financial penalties for those hiding money and other assets offshore, such as, for the first time, linking the penalty to the value of the asset kept offshore. These are in addition to existing measures which already allow for fines of up to 300% of any tax found to have been evaded offshore.

    • New civil penalties for those who deliberately enable offshore evasion so they will face the same penalty as the tax evader.

    • Public naming of both evaders and those who enable evasion.

    • A new criminal offence for corporations that fail to prevent their representatives from facilitating tax evasion. The new offence, which will be legislated for this year, will ensure that corporations exercise due diligence over the services they provide, and ensure that those who don’t can be held to account.

    • A new strict liability criminal offence for offshore evasion, which we are currently legislating for – so in the worst cases it’s no longer possible to plead ignorance in an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution.

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the average rota gap is for junior doctors in NHS foundation trusts in the most recent period for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the effect on services of the size of that gap.

    Ben Gummer

    The Department does not collect this information. Rota arrangements for junior doctors are a matter for individual National Health Service foundation trusts.

    Contact details for NHS foundation trusts and all other NHS authorities can be found on the NHS Choices website:

    http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/thenhs/about/pages/authoritiesandtrusts.aspx

    “

  • Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the emergency department at North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust is able to guarantee patient safety; and if he will make a statement.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS England is the responsible organisation for emergency planning and resilience in London. As such, it has well-established contingency plans in place which take effect in the event of emergency departments (EDs) having to temporarily reduce their scope of operations in order to ensure the best standards of patient care, our central concern.

    As the Rt. hon. Member is aware, following an unannounced inspection by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) at North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, the CQC issued a Warning Notice. The Warning Notice, published on 6 June 2016, requires the trust to significantly improve the treatment of patients attending its emergency department.

    The CQC is responsible for assessing whether the Trust is providing the right standard of care and ensuring that improvement plans meet the level of improvement required.

    NHS Improvement is working alongside NHS England and the local health and care system to ensure that the Trust has the resources it needs to ensure that patients receive safe, high quality care.

    We are informed by NHS Improvement that, in order to address the poor performance at the Trust’s ED, it has devised a plan titled Safer, Faster, Better. This is a whole system programme with the primary objective of improving performance, patient experience and outcomes for patients.

  • Jon Trickett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jon Trickett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jon Trickett on 2016-09-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Care Quality Commission report of December 2015, on Pinderfields Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    These are matters for the local National Health Service. It is the responsibility of the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust Board, its commissioners and regulators, and of the clinicians who work at the Trust, to ensure that the expected standards of care quality are being met.

    Patients at Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust deserve the highest quality care and there is no excuse for services to fall short of the standards. The Trust must take the necessary steps to improve its safety and leadership with the support of NHS Improvement.

  • 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 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will estimate the annual cost to the public purse of (a) extending free dental check-ups to people aged 60 and over and (b) exempting people aged over 60 from all dental charges.

    David Mowat

    The table below shows the estimated cost of extending exemption to National Health Service dental charges for paying patients under the age of 21, age 60 and over and for examinations only for patients aged 60 and over.

    Age Group

    Estimated Cost

    People aged 18-21

    £15.7 million

    People aged 60 and over

    £329.2 million

    People aged 60 and over (for check-ups only)

    £25.1 million

    This data is based on FP17s submitted to the NHS Business Services Authority for general dentistry courses of treatment completed between April 2015 and March 2016. It shows the amount of patient revenue, based on 2016/17 charge levels, which would be foregone should the currently fee paying groups be made exempt.

    Dentists are required to submit a form called an FP17 for every course of NHS dental treatment they provide. The figures assume no increase in the number of patients currently accessing NHS dental care, in reality additional patients may seek NHS treatment if they were to become exempt.

  • Kate Green – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Kate Green – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Green on 2015-11-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to implement the family test.

    Brandon Lewis

    Officials in my Department have liaised with the Department for Work and Pensions as the lead Department for the Family Test to embed it into the policy process. This has included training officials on applying the Test and disseminating relevant evidence, learning materials and best practice.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Emily Thornberry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many single people under the age of 35 with no dependent children were accepted by local authorities as (a) homeless and (b) homeless and in priority need in each of the last six years.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The information requested is not held centrally.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-01-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent reports he has received on fighting in Diyarbakir, Turkey, and surrounding areas.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    I receive regular reports of developments in Diyarbakir and the whole of south east Turkey. The fighting in the region is extremely concerning. The Sur district in Diyarbakir is currently under curfew as part of the government’s response to terrorist attacks from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The UK condemns these attacks as we condemn all terrorism. PKK violence must end and we support a return to the peace process, in the interests of Turkey and the region. We stand ready to help in any way we can. I passed my condolences for victims of a recent PKK attack in Diyarbakir to the Prime Minister of Turkey during my 14 January visit to Ankara.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-02-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the county of origin of manufacture is of the PCS clothing solution.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold a list of countries used by our prime contractors to manufacture Personal Clothing Solution garments. The MOD is required to comply with all legislation and relevant Government policy, and, subject to these conditions, the MOD does not restrict the geographical location of manufacture.