UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Gloria De Piero – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Gloria De Piero – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gloria De Piero on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) appeals and (b) successful appeals against Atos assessments in (i) Nottingham and (ii) Ashfield constituency there were in each of the last three years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The First-tier Tribunal – Social Security and Child Support (SSCS), administered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) decisions on a range of benefits including a person’s entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

    Whilst a work capability assessment (WCA) can be a key factor in an ESA decision, it is not the only consideration. Appeals are brought against ESA refusals, and not WCA decisions themselves. The Tribunal does not record information on those ESA appeals in which the WCA decision is a factor, and as such HMCTS does not hold the specific information requested.

    Information on appeals against ESA decisions is published by HMCTS in Tribunal Statistics Quarterly. The most recent report for the period January to March 2014, published on 12 June 2014, can be viewed at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2014.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2014-06-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution on the human rights situation in North Korea, following the findings of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry; and if so, whether they will sponsor such a Resolution if it appears to face resistance from Russia or China.

    Baroness Warsi

    The UK believes strongly that there should be no impunity for serious international crimes, such as those which the Commission of Inquiry found are being committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). We played an active role in ensuring a strong DPRK resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council, including a call for the UN General Assembly to submit the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the UN Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action. In April we and other Security Council members took part in a public “Arria” briefing by the Commission. This was the first time the Security Council had considered DPRK human rights in this way. We also raised the need for a continued focus on human rights during a UN Security Council Sanctions Committee meeting in May.

    On June 18 the Minister of State, my Rt Hon Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), visited Geneva, where he took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. Mr Swire also raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn’s UN General Assembly (UNGA) session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.

    We will keep the prospect of a UNSC Resolution under review.

  • Baroness Taylor of Bolton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Baroness Taylor of Bolton – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Taylor of Bolton on 2014-06-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many category A and category B prisoners are currently being held in category C or category D prisons.

    Lord Faulks

    All prisoners are assessed as to their risk of escape or abscond, and their risk of harm to the public should they escape or abscond, which ensures allocation of prisoners to a prison providing appropriate levels of security. Only those prisoners categorised as C would be held in a category C prison and only those considered suitable would be held in category D open conditions.

    Those same procedures ensure that category A and B prisoners are not allocated to category C or D prisons and that all prisoners are held in an establishment of at least the security category to which they have been assigned.

    Prisoners re-categorised to a higher category would be held in the prison’s Segregation Unit until such time as they could be moved to more appropriate accommodation.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2014-06-16.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the detailed breakdown of the £7,250,000 so far incurred by the special administration process in relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

    Earl Howe

    The £7,250,000 incurred by the special administration process at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust relates to the period when the trust special administrators (TSAs) were appointed in April 2013, to the point at which the Secretary of State announced his decision to accept the TSAs’ proposals in February 2014.

    We are informed by Monitor that the total figure of £7,250,000 can be broadly broken down as follows:

    – Cost of the TSAs and supporting team to run the Trust – £2,000,000;

    – Cost of solution development – £3,600,000; and

    – Cost of stakeholder engagement and consultation – £1,650,000.

    Monitor has estimated the total cost of the special administration process will be £12 to £15 million. This was first announced as part of its decision to accept the TSAs’ final proposals on 16 January 2104 and re-stated in an announcement on 13 March 2014. This includes the £7,250,000 and £250,000 expenses incurred up to the point of the Secretary of State’s decision.

    The remainder of the estimated total cost consists of costs incurred in the period leading up to the dissolution of the trust. These are the cost of continuing to employ a team to run the trust, and the cost of implementing the recommendations set out in the TSAs’ Final Report.

    We are also informed by Monitor that an original budget for the remaining costs was agreed at approximately £7,000,000.

    That total figure of £7,000,000 can be broadly broken down as follows:

    – Cost of the TSAs and supporting team to run the Trust – £1,500,000;

    – Cost of delivering the transaction – £2,100,000; and

    – Cost of splitting the Trust – £3,400,000.

    The team running the trust will be required to remain in place up to the point at which the trust is dissolved.

  • The Countess of Mar – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The Countess of Mar – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2014-06-16.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether patients have the legal right to be referred to any hospital provider of their choice, no matter where the consultant is located in England, subject to the provisos listed on the NHS website under Choosing your Hospital; whether patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy in Sussex and elsewhere have been denied the opportunity to do so by local clinical commissioning groups when their general practitioners request a referral; and, if so, why.

    Earl Howe

    The 2014-15 Choice Framework and the NHS Constitution, both available on .gov.uk, set out when patients have legal rights to choice.

    The NHS Constitution states that patients have the rightto make choices about the services commissioned by National Health Service bodies and to information to support these choices.

    The 2014-15 NHS Choice Framework establishes that if a patient needs to see a consultant or specialist as an outpatient for a physical or mental health condition, they can choose the organisation that provides their NHS care and treatment anywhere in England for their first outpatient appointment. They can also choose which consultant-led team or which mental health team led by a named health care professional will be in charge of their NHS care and treatment for their first outpatient appointment.

    The organisation can be any clinically appropriate health service provider with whom any clinical commissioning group or NHS England has a commissioning contract for the service required as a result of the referral, but the team must be clinically appropriate and led by a named consultant or health professional who is employed or engaged by that health service provider.

    There are also times that patients are not able to make a choice, and these are outlined in the Choice Framework and the Handbook to the NHS Constitution. For example, patients can only choose a hospital or clinic that offers the right treatment and care for their condition. Furthermore, if patients need urgent or emergency treatment, they cannot choose who they see.

    If a patient, who is not covered by the exemptions, has not been offered choice, or denied the opportunity to exercise choice by a clinical commissioning group, the 2014-15 Choice Framework sets out a clear complaints procedure.

  • Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Richard Fuller – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Fuller on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will review the level of the debt threshold for a creditor bankruptcy petition.

    Jenny Willott

    We plan to review the debt threshold for a creditor bankruptcy petition this year.

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Catherine McKinnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2014-06-16.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many (a) HM Revenue and Customs and (b) National Savings and Investments staff will be employed administering tax-free childcare in (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18 and (iv) 2018-19.

    Nicky Morgan

    On the 23 May the Government published a further consultation on the delivery of childcare accounts within Tax-Free Childcare. The consultation will be open until 27 June and the Government will consider the responses alongside those to the first consultation before it makes its decision on the provision of childcare accounts.

  • Helen Goodman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Helen Goodman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Goodman on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which Arts Council England strategic programmes are designed specifically to address the National Lottery directions issued in 2007.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    Lottery Distributors, including Arts Council England, are required to take account of directions issued under Section 26 (1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. It is for the Arts Council to determine how best to do so in designing its strategic programmes.

  • Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Angus Robertson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Robertson on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what risk assessment he has made of the safety of aircraft handlers and maintenance personnel due to the noise produced by the Joint Strike Fighter.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    Full assessment has been made regarding the noise levels of the Joint Strike Fighter. Personnel noise exposure risk is managed in accordance with The Control of Noise at Work Regulations, 2005 and will include a combination of personal protective equipment and procedures to control daily noise exposure, normal practice for personnel operating machinery such as helicopters, tanks and other aircraft.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Bridget Phillipson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place a copy of 2014DIN05-012 on JSP 441 – The Defence Records Management Policy and Procedures: Publication of Version 4:3 in the Library.

    Dr Andrew Murrison

    A copy of the Defence Instruction Notice 2014-DIN05-012 regarding JSP 441 will be placed in the Library of the House.