Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Madeleine Moon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many recruits of each sex completed training at AFC Harrogate in each year since 2006; how many recruits of each sex commenced Phase 2 training (a) elsewhere and (b) at ITC Catterick; and if he will make a statement.

    Anna Soubry

    No female recruits undergo infantry training. The information requested is shown in the table.

    Year

    AFC Harrogate Completions (Male)

    AFC Harrogate Completions (Female)

    Phase 2 starts elsewhere (Male)

    Phase 2 starts elsewhere (Female)

    Phase 2 starts ITC Catterick (Male)

    2006-07

    860

    50

    560

    50

    300

    2007-08

    890

    50

    580

    50

    300

    2008-09

    860

    40

    540

    40

    320

    2009-10

    960

    80

    580

    80

    380

    2010-11

    840

    60

    560

    60

    280

    2011-12

    800

    20

    330

    20

    480

    2012-13

    1,100

    80

    490

    80

    630

    2013-14

    1,040

    70

    620

    70

    420

    Figures have been rounded to 10; numbers ending in ‘5′ are rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he plans to take steps against Spain other than to appeals to the Government should incursions on the UK border continue.

    Mr David Lidington

    We will continue to uphold British sovereignty by challenging and protesting each and every unlawful incursion into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. We will also continue to lodge formal diplomatic protests about delays at the border.

    In addition to these formal measures, we will continue to make representations to the Spanish government at the highest level, making clear the damage that unlawful incursions and disproportionate measures at the border cause to our bilateral relationship.

    The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) has spoken twice to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, about delays at the border. As a result of those conversations, the Commission sent a monitoring mission to the border and we now expect the Commission to insist that Spain implements the recommendations it received on improving the flow of people and traffic.

    We do not rule out further measures. However, it is important that we act in ways that do not make life still more difficult for businesses and ordinary citizens in Gibraltar. We are continuing to seek a way forward on the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) proposal for ad hoc talks as the best means of discussing and resolving issues of concern.

  • Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to rectify the (a) inconsistent understanding of Army staffing requirements, (b) limited use of management information and (c) unsystematic approach to improvement in relation to the Recruiting Partnering Project referred to on pages 36 and 37 of the National Audit Office report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014.

    Anna Soubry

    The National Audit Office made a number of observations and recommendations in their report into Army 2020. The Department will respond to these in due course. Part of the reason the Army has entered a recruitment partnership with Capita is to harness the benefits of an integrated recruiting system to help the Army drive more effective end to end recruiting and training activity. As the Capita IT systems and applications and the Recruitment Partnering Project reaches Full Operating Capability, and can interact with other IT tools available to the Army, we would expect to see these benefits realised.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tracey Crouch on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of dementia awareness training in the health and social care sector; and if he will make a statement.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    The Government’s Mandate to Health Education England (HEE), published in May 2013, included the following deliverables:

    – All National Health Service staff who look after patients with dementia can have foundation level dementia training; and

    – 100,000 NHS staff will have received foundation level training by 31 March 2014.

    The latest data available from HEE shows that over 108,000 NHS staff had completed Tier 1 dementia awareness training by 14 October 2013.

    The Department has commissioned a number of projects on dementia education and training for health and social care staff and is working closely with its Workforce Advisory Group on dementia to consider the effectiveness of this work.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2014-06-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 17 June (WA 37), which third countries envisage joining the European Union; and what assessment they have made of the impact of further European Union enlargement, particularly on the financing of the European Union and migration.

    Baroness Warsi

    Six countries currently have been awarded Candidate Status by the European Union (EU). Of these, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are currently in accession negotiations. Iceland has suspended its accession negotiations. Macedonia is a candidate country but has not yet opened accession negotiations. Last month, the European Council endorsed the decision to grant Candidate Status to Albania. Two further countries are recognised as potential candidates. These are Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo.

    The current governments of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have all publicly expressed an interest in joining the EU.

    The accession process is a lengthy one, involving detailed negotiation of 35 Chapters of the EU Acquis, with candidate countries required to adapt their administrative and institutional infrastructures and bring their national legislation into line with EU legislation in these areas. Financing of the EU and migration will be addressed at several stages in this process, notably in EU Common Positions and related impact assessments by the European Commission on Chapter 2 (Free Movement of Workers), Chapter 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security) and 33 (Financial and Budgetary Provisions). We welcome the emphasis that EU Enlargement Commissioner, Stefan Fule, has placed upon economic governance in the enlargement process, which should increase economic convergence between accession countries and the EU and reduce migratory pressures.

    The UK has not produced national impact assessments on EU enlargement in addition to the European Commission’s own impact assessments. As part of the Government’s review of the balance of competences with the European Union, however, reports are due to be published on enlargement and free movement of persons.

  • Yasmin Qureshi – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Yasmin Qureshi – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Yasmin Qureshi on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what methods of data collection his Department uses to measure the performance of services against each of the 13 statements in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Breast cancer quality standard.

    Jane Ellison

    The Health and Social Care Act (2012) places a duty on NHS England to have regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Quality Standards. Commissioners should have regard to them in the planning of services they commission according to their population needs.

    Whilst no assessment has been made of the performance of services against the Breast Cancer Quality Standard, compliance with Quality Standards generally could be monitored through a range of mechanisms depending on the specific Quality Standard. For example, the 30 national clinical audits funded by NHS England, the Best Practice Tariff, Commissioning for Quality Improvement Initiatives arrangements and the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set. These levers are designed to drive quality improvement in the National Health Service using Quality Standards where appropriate.

    At the request of NHS England, the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership will shortly begin commissioning a new national breast cancer clinical audit. There is an expectation that national clinical audits, where appropriate, support the implementation of NICE clinical guidelines and Quality Standards. The new national clinical audit will be in place by the end of 2014-15.

  • Ian Murray – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Ian Murray – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Murray on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 782W, on Royal Mail, what link was established in the engagement letter between the payment of the discretionary fee and the ending of the stabilisation period; and what targets or deadlines were set in the letter.

    Michael Fallon

    The engagement letter between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the syndicate of banks involved in the initial public offering indicated that the payment of the discretionary fee would be determined 10 days after the end of the stabilisation period and paid 5 days after that.

    As I said in my previous answer (1 May 2014, Official Report, column 782W), we informed the banks that a decision would not be taken in the timeframe set out in the engagement letter given the volatility of the Royal Mail share price after the IPO. The share price remains volatile.

    We have not set any timetable for the decision.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assesses the cost-effectiveness of an intervention when the data available are uncertain; what assessment NICE has made of the average range around the most-plausible cost-per-QALY in its technology appraisals; and if he will make a statement.

    Norman Lamb

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) follows a rigorous process in the appraisal of technologies to ensure that judgements regarding the cost-effective use of NHS resources are consistently applied. This includes consideration of the uncertainty generated where available data have serious limitations.

    When making judgements on cost effectiveness, the NICE appraisal committee will consider a number of factors including the strength of the clinical-effectiveness evidence, the innovative nature of the technology, the robustness and plausibility of the economic models, the degree of certainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the range and plausibility of the ICERs and the likelihood of decision error and its consequences. Full details of how the Committee takes uncertainty into account is contained within sections 5.8, 6.3 and 6.4 of NICE’s Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, which is available at:

    http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9

    NICE advises that it has not carried out an assessment of the average range around the most plausible cost-per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in its technology appraisals. We understand that although NICE usually specifies the most plausible cost-per-QALY for each technology appraisal, it does not normally specify a range for this assessment.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Gregory Campbell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2014-06-18.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps his Department takes to ensure that delegated legislation brought forward by his Department is consistent with EU Directives.

    Nicky Morgan

    In 2010 this Government committed to ensuring the effective implementation of EU legislation so that British businesses are not put at a disadvantage relative to their European competitors.

    This Department follows the Government’s Guiding Principles for EU legislation, which can be found at the following link:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/185626/bis-13-774-guiding-principles-for-eu-legislation.pdf

    HM Treasury is committed to ensuring that no unnecessary legislative burdens are placed on UK businesses when transposing EU law.

    “

  • Andrew Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andrew Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Israeli citizens were found to be working in the UK without an appropriate visa in each of the last five years.

    James Brokenshire

    The following table gives the number of Israeli nationals arrested on illegal
    working type enforcement visits from 2009 to 2013.

    Table 1 – Israeli nationals arrested on illegal working type enforcement visits, 2009 to 2013

    2009

    2010

    2011

    2012

    2013

    Total

    Arrests

    46

    43

    1

    0

    7

    97

    “