Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Blencathra – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2015-11-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any grant application by or award made to Action on Smoking and Health by the Department of Health in the last five years was not considered first by the Voluntary Sector Grants Hub.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    All grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the last five years have been awarded under Section 64 powers. There are a range of different circumstances under which it would not be appropriate or represent best value for money to run a competed scheme. The grants awarded to ASH have been assessed as most appropriate for the non-competed route.

    The assessment of any grant application for funding from ASH is undertaken by members of the Tobacco Control policy team. Following this assessment, the Grants Hub makes a decision regarding whether or not to approve the application. These policy assessments contain policy advice to Ministers and so are not made public. Approvals are required from Ministers and from HM Treasury or are subject to a Departmental approval process that has been agreed with HM Treasury.

    To identify relevant representations the Department has received would result in disproportionate cost.

  • 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 2015-12-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to paragraph 1.143 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, what steps his Department took to ensure accuracy of the £2 billion quoted as the cost to insurers of whiplash claims; and if his Department will conduct its own estimate of that cost.

    Dominic Raab

    The Government received and analysed data from numerous sources when formulating the announcement in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement. The quoted figures were arrived at by combining published industry estimates along with data from government and other sources.

    Government data, compiled by the Compensation Recovery Unit at the Department for Work and Pensions, indicates that claims volumes remain at historically high levels, some 50% higher than in 2006. Over the same period accident rates have fallen by around 26%. This is clear evidence that the system is in need of further reform, which is why on 25 November, in his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced tough new measures to control costs and reduce the number of unnecessary whiplash claims.

    The Government will consult on the detail of the new reform package in due course and the consultation document will be accompanied by an impact assessment.

  • Stephen Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Stephen Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Phillips on 2016-01-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on how many occasions in each of the last two calendar years his Department has been notified by outside consultants or other third parties of breaches by employees or subcontractors of those consultants of document retention or security policies relating to confidential or secure materials.

    Brandon Lewis

    There is no record of any occasion during 2014 or 2015 where the Department has been notified centrally by outside consultants or other third parties of breaches by employees or subcontractors of those consultants of document retention or security policies relating to confidential or secure materials.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Caroline Nokes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Nokes on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse attending the family courts have access to special measures similar to those available in the criminal courts.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Government is committed to supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

    The Ministry of Justice is undertaking research to explore how the family judiciary are currently managing cases where unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in the family court, and to establish what, if any, additional provisions could be considered to support them in doing so. A report will be published in due course.

    The research did not aim to assess the psychological impact of any cross-examination on victims of domestic abuse. However, some of the findings relate to the considerations the judiciary make in managing such cases appropriately, and the report will outline options to further protect vulnerable witnesses in the family court. It was out of scope of this research to explore cases where an unrepresented litigant who is a victim of domestic abuse may have to cross-examine their alleged abuser.

    Family judges have a range of powers and training to manage difficult court room situations and to ensure they are handled sensitively for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. Judges can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate. It is for the judge involved, on the basis of the evidence, to determine how the framework will be applied in a particular case.

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J set out a strong and clear framework where domestic violence is alleged and all judges receive specific training on this framework.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much his Department received from the European Social Fund between (a) 2007 and 2014 and (b) 2014 and the last month for which data is available.

    Priti Patel

    DWP, as a European Social Fund co-financing organisation, received £303,861,761 between January 2007 and December 2013; and £96,331,501 between January 2014 and March 2016 from the 2007-13 European Social Fund programme. The money was used to fund providers to deliver support to help unemployed people improve their employability and move into work.

    Please note that these figures represent England only as responsibility for ESF is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-04-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what proportion of people receiving jobseekers allowance were reported as having failed to turn up for job interviews in the last year.

    Priti Patel

    This information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in identifying the most geologically suitable site for the future storage of nuclear waste.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The 2014 Implementing Geological Disposal White Paper set out three initial actions for Government and the developer (Radioactive Waste Management) to provide greater clarity on issues such as geology, development impacts and community representation.

    In April 2016 Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) published National Geological Screening Guidance which sets out how they intend to bring together, present and provide authoritative and existing information on UK geology relevant to the long term safety of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

    RWM are applying this Guidance and have started gathering existing information on the UK’s geology which will help communities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland better understand their potential suitability to host a GDF. It will not, however, determine if a particular location, region or area can definitively host a GDF.

    Formal engagement between the developer and potential host communities will start in 2017 once the Government and RWM have delivered the initial actions, including the national geological screening outputs. Good progress is being made in the short term with a clear long term goal of delivering safe and secure final disposal of all our radioactive waste.

  • The Lord Bishop of Coventry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Lord Bishop of Coventry – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Lord Bishop of Coventry on 2016-07-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Bangladesh about human rights violations against Hindus and bringing to justice those responsible for the destruction of temples and other places of worship.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Our assessment is that the rise in extremist attacks has increased pressure on religious minorities, including Hindus, in Bangladesh.

    The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), most recently talked to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh about the importance of countering extremism in the margins of the G7 meeting in Japan on 27 May. The former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), raised this with Foreign Minister Ali on 5 July. The British High Commissioner regularly discusses these issues with Bangladesh government ministers.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Thomas-Symonds on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of NHS England’s clinical policy prioritisation process for specialised services on the provision of treatment to patients in the devolved nations; and if he will make a statement.

    David Mowat

    As health is a devolved function, it is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to make decisions about how they prioritise funding for specialised treatments. NHS England’s clinical policy prioritisation process relates solely to the direct commissioning responsibilities of NHS England and predominantly affects patients in England.

    However, NHS England works closely with the three devolved nations, particularly through the Rare Diseases Advisory Group (of which the three devolved nations are members), whose function is to provide advice to NHS England and the devolved nations on the commissioning of highly specialised services. The devolved nations are also observers on the Clinical Priorities Advisory Group, which advises NHS England on which specialised services should be prioritised for funding.

  • Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Lister of Burtersett – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett on 2015-11-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the viability of (1) the care home sector, and (2) the private home care provider sector, in the light of local government expenditure restraint and the implementation of the National Living Wage.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government has engaged with the care sector, including care providers, to understand the impact on the market arising from amongst other things, local authority commissioning behaviour and the introduction of the National Living Wage. This has included a number of deep dive sessions held with both care home businesses and providers of home care services.

    As part of its spending plans for the next four years the Government is giving local authorities access to £3.5 billion of new support for adult social care by 2019/20. Local authorities will be able to introduce a new Social Care Precept, allowing them to increase council tax by 2% above the existing threshold. The Government estimates this could raise nearly £2 billion a year for adult social care by 2019/20.

    Councils will need to increase the price they pay for care to cover costs for care providers such as the National Living Wage. To support this, the Social Care Precept puts money raising powers into the hands of local authorities which are best placed to target resources based on their understanding of their local care market.