UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Willis of Knaresborough – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on safe staffing levels for qualified nurses in the NHS and other health and care establishments subject to Care Quality Commission or Monitor inspections.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government is committed to supporting National Health Service trusts to put in place sustained safe staffing by using their resources as effectively as possible for patients.

    Hospitals should be able to demonstrate that they are able to ensure safe, quality care for patients and that they are making the best use of resources. This should take account of patient acuity and dependency, time of day and local factors. It is therefore important for providers to take a rounded view, looking at staffing in a flexible way which is focused on the quality of care, patient safety and efficiency rather than just numbers and ratios of staff.

    The responsibility for both safe staffing and efficiency rests, as it has always done, with provider Boards.

    Comprehensive lists of research commissioned and published, of criteria in all European Union countries, Australia and the United States, each of which have a variety of systems in operation, and of discussions held by United Kingdom officials to compare patient outcomes in those countries with outcomes in England, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    However, the 2013 National Quality Board (NQB) guidance on safe staffing issued in 2013 How to ensure the right people, with the right skills, are in the right place at the right time: A guide to nursing, midwifery and care staffing capacity and capability, referred to a number of sources of evidence on this issue. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) safe staffing guideline Safe staffing for nursing in adult inpatient wards in acute hospitals, July 2014 set out the evidence and expert papers, including international evidence, that was considered in preparing the guideline. A copy of the NQB guidance and the NICE guideline are attached.

    In addition, The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissions research evidence to improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health services through the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Current research of particular relevance to the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes and mortality includes:

    – a study on nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards; and

    – a study on the future of 24/7 care: investigating the links between staffing levels, patient access and inequalities in health outcomes.

    As announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July 2015, Dr Mike Durkin, National Director for Patient Safety, is working with the Chief Nursing Officer to complete the work started by NICE on safe staffing levels. Their work will draw on evidence and expert advice from England and internationally, and will be reviewed independently by NICE, the Chief Inspector of hospitals, and Sir Robert Francis to ensure it meets the high standards of care the NHS aspires to.

    The programme includes revision of the NQB 2013 guidance to take account of further developments in the evidence base, the need to look beyond acute settings, new models of care leading from the Five Year Forward View and the need for providers to secure both safe staffing and greater efficiency.

  • Kwasi Kwarteng – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Kwasi Kwarteng – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kwasi Kwarteng on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether it is his policy to expand London’s transport zones to include (a) Spelthorne constituency and (b) other new areas inside the M25 orbital that do not use the oyster system.

    Claire Perry

    The Travelcard map, showing the zone in which each station falls, is set out as part of the Travelcard Agreement between the Train Operating Companies and Transport for London (TfL). Any changes to station zones must be proposed by a signatory to the Agreement and then agreed by the remaining signatories. The government is not a signatory to the Agreement and therefore has no role in proposing such changes to station zones.

    Once a change is proposed by TfL and the Train Operating Companies, the Department for Transport can approve or reject the change proposals. This decision is made by the Secretary of State for Transport, on the basis of a business case and other wider policy and initiatives that may be considered at the time. If the proposal does not represent good value for money, it would be unlikely to get approval. It would be inappropriate for the Government to promote or back any proposals outside of this established process.

    In the current rail franchising contracts there are commitments for train operators to bring forward proposals to extend Oyster and Contactless to Swanley, Epsom, Hertford North, Luton Airport Parkway and Welwyn Garden City. The Secretary of State will consider these proposals on their individual merits when they have been developed and submitted in accordance with the process set out above.

  • Lisa Cameron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lisa Cameron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lisa Cameron on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent discussions he has had with Sir John Chilcot on the publication date of the Iraq Inquiry.

    Mr Oliver Letwin

    None.

  • Keith Simpson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Keith Simpson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Simpson on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which of the security service files in the series KV2/1500 held in the National Archives on SS Sturmbannführer Kriminaldirektor Horst Kopkow are closed; and for what reasons such files are closed.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Security Service’s historic files on Horst KOPKOW were made available to the public at The National Archives in March 2004 (reference numbers KV2/1500 and KV2/1501). KOPKOW also appears in a report on a file at The National Archives relating to the Gestapo that was made available in February 2005 (reference number KV3/109). None of the files held in The National Archives on Horst KOPKOW are closed. Any redactions made to these files have been made for reasons of national security. The Government is committed to releasing historical files to the National Archives where it is appropriate to do so.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the contribution of the Materials Processing Institute to the development of a modern British steel industry.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government is exploring all options to support steel and the foundation industries. We are interested to consider how we can develop the best way forward for the UK industry alongside all parties with steel expertise, including the Materials Processing Institute.

  • Ian Murray – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Ian Murray – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Murray on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the timetable for work to commence on building the new Type 26 Frigate on the skills base in the affected shipyards.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave during Defence questions in the House on 27 June 2016 to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).

    The Government have already invested £1.6 billion in the Type 26 programme. We will only enter into a contract once we are confident of the delivery schedule and the ability of the contractors to meet that schedule on a cost effective basis.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimates his Department has made of potential cost of proposed transitional measures to address the effects on women born in the 1950s following state pension equalisation.

    Caroline Nokes

    Transitional arrangements are already in place. At the time of the Pensions Act 2011 the Government introduced a concession worth £1.1 billion to limit the impact of the rising State Pension age on those most affected. The concession capped the maximum delay that anyone would face in claiming their State Pension to 18 months rather than two years, relative to the previous timetable. The Government has no plans to introduce further transitional arrangements.

    The following link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-foi-releases-for-march-2016 provides:

    • information on the transitional arrangements considered during the passage of the Pensions Act 2011 (see table A); and
    • illustrative costings for hypothetical policies including the three requested by the previous Minister for Pensions (see tables B to D).

    These options are not under policy consideration.

    “

  • Lord Smith of Finsbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Smith of Finsbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Smith of Finsbury on 2015-11-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, and on what timetable, for changes to IR35 assessments for employees and contractors.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    Whilst the IR35 legislation protects in excess of £500 million each year, non-compliance is currently costing in excess of £400 million and is a growing problem.

    At the Summer Budget, the Chancellor announced that HM Revenue and Customs would open a dialogue with stakeholders about improving the effectiveness of IR35.

    A discussion document was published on 17 July 2015. The discussion period concluded on 30 September, following the receipt of over 160 responses and 14 roundtable meetings. The Government is now considering the responses.

  • Karl Turner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Karl Turner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl Turner on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisons allow children to take school books in with them when visiting.

    Andrew Selous

    This information is not held centrally.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Oliver Dowden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Oliver Dowden on 2016-01-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what regulations govern the manufacture, import and sale of laser pens in the UK.

    Anna Soubry

    All products intended for use by consumers are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations (GPSR) 2005 which implements the EU’s General Product Safety Directive (GPSD). This requires such products to be safe when placed on the market and applies to products where there is no other applicable legislation with more specific provisions on safety. This includes laser pens.

    In addition to the legislation, lasers sold in the UK and EU are covered by the safety standard BS EN 60825-1: 1994 Safety of Laser Products. This specifies those lasers which should be used by trained operators and therefore not suitable for use by the general public. Laser products up to 1 mW are considered safe for general consumer use.

    Trading Standards has the powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 to remove laser products from sale to the public, which are unsafe for general consumer use. If anyone is concerned about the safety of a product they should not use it and report it to their local Trading Standards department.