Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Heidi Alexander – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Heidi Alexander – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Heidi Alexander on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much land his Department has released for the purpose of building new homes since May 2010.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The Department is committed to disposing of surplus property assets expeditiously. Since the start of the Spending Review (SR10) the size of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estate has reduced by over 600 properties to nearly 1,500 properties. The MoJ has already released land suitable for 1,253 housing units and in 2014/15 we are expected to release land suitable for a further 300 units. Therefore we will comfortably exceed our SR10 target of releasing land suitable for 1,262 housing units.

  • Ian Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ian Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Lucas on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what works will be undertaken as part of the upgrade of the Halton Curve.

    Claire Perry

    This scheme involves the installation of new crossovers at Halton and Frodsham with a track upgrade enabling trains to operate in both directions. This work reinstates a rail link which will enable passenger services from North Wales and West Cheshire to directly access Liverpool City Centre and Liverpool John Lennon airport. Further details of the work to be provided by Network Rail early next year.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much his Department paid to (a) G4S, (b) Serco, (c) Sodexo, (d) GEOAmey, (e) Capita, (f) Atos, (g) Mitie, (h) Working Links, (i) A4E, (j) MTC Amey, (k) GEO Group and (l) Carillion in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13 and (iv) 2013-14.

    Steve Webb

    Please see table below:

    Supplier

    2010/11

    2011/12

    2012/13

    2013/14

    G4S Group

    £81,433

    £17,951,654

    £32,123,087

    £46,377,724

    Serco Group PLC

    £73,458,641

    £29,569,238

    £45,457,786

    £58,823,106

    Sodexo Ltd

    NIL

    £685

    £2,895

    £558

    GEO Amey

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    Capita Group PLC

    £57,821,217

    £40,754,470

    £42,255,394

    £50,702,838

    Atos Origin UK Ltd

    £150,589,213

    £143,524,261

    £146,857,967

    £102,646,905

    Mitie Managed Services

    £4,889

    £859

    £648

    £20,277

    Working Links

    £85,337,045

    £54,253,693

    £78,302,405

    Action for Employment

    £175,360,690

    £89,243,572

    £75,616,533

    £104,396,574

    MTC Amey

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    GEO Group

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    NIL

    Carillion

    £923

    NlL

    NIL

    £11,339
  • Maria Miller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Maria Miller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Maria Miller on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning which individuals in care homes and hospitals should be subject to a deprivation of liberty assessment; and if he will make a statement.

    Norman Lamb

    On 19 March 2014, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment that clarified the test for what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. The clarified test is: “An individual who lacks the mental capacity to consent to the arrangements for his or her care and is under continuous control and supervision and is not free to leave”.

    Following the judgment, the Department issued an advice note to health and care professionals and local authorities to highlight this legal interpretation and its implications.

    The Department is currently monitoring the effects of the judgment on the health and care system and on local authorities. The Health and Social Care Information Centre will carry out an additional voluntary data collection. This will gather information from local authorities on how many applications have been received for authorisations in care homes and hospitals under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards since the judgment. We expect the data to be available in October 2014; this will facilitate an assessment of the judgment’s impact.

    At the Department’s request, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services is leading a task group to consider the implications of the judgment. This group has representation from local authorities, NHS England, the Care Quality Commission and the Department. The group intends to issue advice in the autumn.

  • Keir Starmer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Keir Starmer – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keir Starmer on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when funds will be made available to enable the eastern section of the station at Euston to be redeveloped; and if he will ensure that this is developed as a level-deck station with platforms at the same levels as those for High Speed 2.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    HS2 Ltd deposited an Additional Provision (AP3) to the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill on 16 September 2015 which includes revised plans for London Euston station. The new plans focus on an incremental strategy which will deliver new high speed platforms (Stages A and B1) and do not preclude wider redevelopment of the existing station in the future (Stage B2).

    The redevelopment of the existing station (Stage B2) will be subject to separate planning and funding decisions that will be made at an appropriate point in the process. Network Rail is preparing plans for the feasibility work of this redevelopment which will be submitted as part of its Control Period 6 (CP6) submission (which covers the period 2019-2024). These plans will consider the impacts of all options for station redevelopment including level-deck and split-level concourses and will include an assessment of the effects of this redevelopment, including the potential effects on local residents, businesses and rail users. The process will start with the Initial Industry Plan which is anticipated to be published in September 2016.

  • Jon Trickett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jon Trickett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jon Trickett on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will amend existing legislation relating to police widow pensions to bring parity with other public sector pensions.

    Mike Penning

    In common with other public sector pensions, the police pension schemes provide a pension for the widow, widower or civil partner of a police officer who dies. For the 2006 and 2015 police pension schemes that pension is paid for life regardless of future remarriage, civil partnership or cohabitation. As the Home Secretary announced in the House of Commons on 12 October 2015, in recognition of the level of risk that police officers face in the execution of their duty, the 1987 Police Pension Scheme will shortly be amended to ensure that widows, widowers and surviving civil partners of police officers who died on duty in England and Wales will no longer lose their survivors’ benefits if they remarry, form a civil partnership or cohabit in the future. The Government will lay these regulations in the coming weeks and the change will be backdated to 1 April 2015.

  • Valerie Vaz – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Valerie Vaz – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Valerie Vaz on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the merits of providing concessions to ease the cost of automatic-enrolment pensions for small businesses.

    Justin Tomlinson

    In 2010 the independent Making Automatic Enrolment Work (MAEW) review considered the impact of automatic enrolment on small businesses. Following the recommendations of the MAEW review, the Pensions Act 2011 introduced a package of measures to reduce costs and make implementation easier for small employers. DWP’s impact assessments continue to monitor the costs and benefits of automatic enrolment on small businesses.

    DWP is working hard to minimise the additional costs of automatic enrolment, particularly for small employers. The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) was established by the Government specifically to ensure that smaller firms have access to high quality, good value pension provision.

    NEST continues to undertake service improvements, including making it possible for small employers to set up and run NEST directly through their payroll software. The Pensions Regulator is also undertaking research and testing in order to enhance its tools and educational material, and to simplify the automatic enrolment process for small employers.

    The decision to defer the staging period of small and micro firms from April 2014 to June 2015 brought significant easement to small and micro employers, leading to lower contribution costs and lower administrative costs. Additionally the contribution level is being phased in, in order to help employers adjust to these costs. The minimum employer contribution is currently 1% and this will rise to 3% when the auto-enrolment programme is fully rolled out over the next few years.

  • Helen Hayes – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Helen Hayes – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Hayes on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the representations made by Shelter and the Money Advice Trust on the effect on tenant choice of the removal of a tenant’s ability to have payment of the housing element of the universal credit paid directly to their landlord.

    Priti Patel

    The independent evaluation of the Universal Credit (UC) Direct Payment Demonstration Projects report showed that asking claimants to take responsibility for paying their rent did not lead to big increases in rent arrears. We are drawing on the findings from these Projects as part of our approach to continually improving the service. The reports can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-payment-demonstration-projects-final-reports

    “

  • Lord Berkeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2015-10-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage local authorities to construct busways, and what is their latest estimate of the cost per mile of new busways.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    It is for local authorities to decide how best to deal with the transport issues in their areas. Should they decide that a Busway is the solution they wish to implement they would need to undertake the necessary design and obtain legal orders. Should they require government funding they should submit a bid through the Local Growth Fund process in conjunction with their Local Enterprise Partnership.

    We do not have an estimate of the cost per mile of new busways. The last two schemes approved by the Government have been Cambridgeshire Guided Bus (42km, both guided and on-road, costing £180m) and Luton Guided Bus (7.2km of on and off road at a total cost of £89.2m).

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether Monitor and the Care Quality Commission apply a consistent approach in relation to safety, quality and financial requirements of NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Robert Francis’ second report into the failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust led to major changes in the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) regulatory regime, and to Monitor’s and the NHS Trust Development Authority’s (NHS TDA) routine oversight of providers and assessment of aspirant foundation trusts. It has also resulted in closer working relationships between the three bodies responsible for regulation and oversight, particularly around the sharing of information and intelligence.

    The currentrelationship between the CQC and Monitor is set out in a Memorandum of understanding and Operational Annexes which are attached. These outline how the two organisations work together, including on safety and quality issues. This includes the co-ordination and sharing of information following a CQC inspection and CQC providing a briefing document for Monitor which includes a review of the provider’s compliance from a quality of care perspective. The Operational Annex also specifically states, ‘each organisation will openly share relevant information on safety, quality, financial and governance risks at a licenced provider where appropriate’.

    The Government sponsors each of the regulators, and provides stewardship of the health and care system as a whole, and in this role works with the regulators on an individual and collective basis to ensure that the regulatory system is as consistent and effective as possible. Both the Government and the system regulators are clear that it is in the interests of future care quality that the finances of acute trusts are healthy; and many of the improvements that are needed to improve quality of care will also improve efficiency.