Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Nigel Adams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Nigel Adams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nigel Adams on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what incentives her Department (a) is providing and (b) is planning to provide for (i) biomass and (ii) gas generation to create additional capacity.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Support is provided for biomass under a range of renewable financial incentives: the Renewables Obligation (RO), Feed in Tariff (FIT), Contracts for Difference (CfD) and Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). The RO closed to co-firing and conversions last year and any future support will be via CfD.

    The government announced it will hold three auctions for Contracts for Difference of up to £730 million this Parliament. Details of the future CFD allocation rounds will be published in due course.

    The Government confirmed increased funding for the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme in November 2015 as part of the Spending Review, with the annual budget rising from £430m in 2015/16 to £1.15bn in 2020/21.

    Getting new gas-fired stations built is a priority for Government and we are confident that the Capacity Market is the right mechanism to bring forward new capacity as older less efficient plants close. We have announced that we are going buy more capacity in December’s auction, tighten delivery incentives and bring forward the first capacity market delivery year to 2017/18. This should improve the chances of new gas (CCGTs, OCGTS and gas engines) capacity clearing in future auctions. Subject to a forthcoming consultation, closing unabated coal by 2025 will further strengthen investment signals for new gas. In addition, DECC is working with the planning inspectorate to arrange a workshop in June to explain how developers can use the pre-application project planning process to ensure applications for new gas plants are progressed as swiftly as possible.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-06-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the local management structure is of the NHS in West Sussex.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS Improvement advises that the following National Health Service organisations operate in West Sussex and each has its own management structure:

    ― Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust:

    https://www.bsuh.nhs.uk/about-us/

    ― Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation:

    http://www.westernsussexhospitals.nhs.uk/your-trust/about/plans-strategies/

    ― Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust:

    http://www.qvh.nhs.uk/about-us/

    ― Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust:

    http://www.sussexcommunity.nhs.uk/downloads/services/about-us.pdf

    ― Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust:

    http://www.sussexpartnership.nhs.uk/about-us

    ― South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust:

    http://www.secamb.nhs.uk/about_us.aspx

    ― Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust:

    http://www.surreyandsussex.nhs.uk/about-us/about-the-trust/

    ― Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG):

    http://www.coastalwestsussexccg.nhs.uk/about-cwsccg

    ― Crawley CCG:

    http://www.crawleyccg.nhs.uk/about-us/

    ― Horsham and Mid Sussex CCG:

    http://www.horshamandmidsussexccg.nhs.uk/about-us/

    “

  • Lord Ramsbotham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Ramsbotham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ramsbotham on 2016-09-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the final report of the review of the youth justice system will be published.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    The estimated total cost of the review of the youth justice system is £350,000. This figure is subject to audit at the end of the 2016-17 financial year and may change.

    Ministers are currently considering Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system. The final report and the government’s plans for reform of the youth justice system will be published later in the autumn.

  • Richard Burden – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Statement of 10 November 2015 HCWS301, how many (a) types and (b) brands of vehicles he estimates (i) the UK, (ii) Germany and (iii) other countries will test as part of the broader testing programme for emissions deficiencies.

    Andrew Jones

    The cost of the evaluation programme are still being developed, but it is estimated that testing could cost up to £15,000 per vehicle.

    We have approved a budget of £675,000 from public funds to ensure that this important work can proceed. However, we have also agreed with ministers in Germany and in France that we will collaborate and secure best value for the taxpayer.

    The UK programme will consider, without bias, vehicles from 19 manufacturers. The programme will assess approximately 70 different models. However, we have been in contact with ministers in Germany and in France and we have agreed that we should work cooperatively to ensure that we rationalise our respective test programmes to avoid duplication of testing.

    The cost of recalling the vehicles in the UK will be met by Volkswagen group and will not fall to the public purse.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his international counterparts on forced disappearances in Syria.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We continue to press (including in international fora) for the immediate end to enforced disappearances in Syria and the release of those arbitrarily detained.

    The UK sponsored three resolutions on the human rights situation in Syria at the Human Rights Council during 2015 condemning all arbitrary detention of individuals by the Syrian authorities and other parties to the conflict and demanding the immediate release of all persons arbitrarily detained. We also co-sponsored the UN General Assembly Third Committee Resolution on the human rights situation in Syria which was successfully adopted on 19 November.

    We support the UN Commission of Inquiry’s investigations into human rights violations and abuses, including enforced disappearances, in Syria. In partnership with other donor countries, we are funding the collection of documentary evidence on such abuses for use in possible legal processes in the future. We continue to call for the UN Commission of Inquiry to have unhindered access to all persons deprived of their liberty and allow them to investigate.

    Last year the UK co-sponsored a UN Security Council Resolution to refer all those responsible for war-crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, regardless of affiliation, to the International Criminal Court. Russia and China chose to veto this resolution.

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the implications of the police indicating to a person being interviewed under caution that no further action will be taken due to insufficient, or a lack of, evidence.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    The implications in such circumstances are detailed in a written answer on 31 March 1993 by the then Attorney General (Sir Nicholas Lyell), as outlined below.

    The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

    Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

    (1) rare cases where reconsiderations of the original decision show that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

    (2) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted. (Official Report, Col’s 200-201).

    Following this written answer and further written ministerial statements, the Crown Prosecution Service has produced guidance for prosecutors to follow concerning the exercise of the CPS discretion to institute, reinstitute or continue proceedings after a suspect has been informed by the police or CPS of a decision not to prosecute. The above mentioned Written Statements are detailed below and are published in the Official Report.

    WMS – Crown Prosecutors Code – 22 February 2010. Column WS64, Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

    WMS – Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision (CPS Guidance) – 31 October 2012, Col 15WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

    WMS – Victim’s Right to Review – 5 June 2013, Col 99WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

  • Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Malcolm McDonald on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent discussions she has had with the charity Broken Rainbow on renewing funding from her Department; and if she will make a statement.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government is committed to tackling domestic violence and abuse. Broken Rainbow plays an important role in supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims of domestic abuse, and the Home Office provided £120,000 to support the Broken Rainbow helpline for the 2015/16 financial year.

    We are carefully considering ongoing funding of national helplines, in close consultation with helpline providers, and decisions on renewing funding will be announced shortly.

  • Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of people on temporary admission who travel for mandatory reporting from Oxfordshire to London have their transport costs paid from the public purse.

    James Brokenshire

    Immigration Enforcement retains a record of tickets that are issued to people on temporary admission for the purpose of travel to report at an Immigration Reporting Centre.

    Immigration Enforcement does not keep a record of the area from which those individuals have travelled. We are required to provide a travel ticket if the subject resides more than 3 miles away from the reporting centre and is in receipt of Asylum Support. We do not routinely provide travel tickets for anyone else who reports unless they reside over 25 miles away and there is an exceptional reason to do so. Each case is assessed and considered on its own merit.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-12.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendation in the review What’s important to me: A review of choice in end of life care, that greater joint working between palliative care specialists and other clinical staff, and between secondary care and primary care staff, is important in order to identify people who may need end of life care as early as possible; and what action they are taking to implement that recommendation.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    We are committed to ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

    The Government’s forthcoming response to the independent Review of Choice in End of Life Care, which will be published shortly, will set out our vision for high quality, personalised care and the steps we will take to achieve this. The response will also address each of the Review recommendations, including on care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care.

  • Lyn Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lyn Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lyn Brown on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will ensure that the PROUD trial participants will continue to receive a supply of the pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV drugs after June 2016.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS England is in the process of re-considering its decision to remove pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) from the specialised commissioning annual prioritisation process. As such, no final decisions have yet been taken by NHS England as to whether or not they will routinely commission PrEP. This process, which is being overseen by NHS England’s Specialised Services Commissioning Committee, is expected to complete by the end of May 2016. Until the outcome of this process is known, NHS England will continue to work with Public Health England and the Department on planning for the proposed £2 million investment in an early implementer test site programme for PrEP. As part of this, NHS England will be exploring how, and where appropriate, a period of further support might be offered to the participants enrolled on the PROUD study. All the PROUD trial participants signed an explicit consent form that made clear that there was no long term commitment to continue providing PrEP beyond the trial.