Tag: Roger Godsiff

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-12-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the measures proposed in clause 13 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on claimants with (a) Parkinson’s disease and (b) other incurable and degenerative conditions.

Priti Patel

The Government set out its assessment of the impacts of the policies in Bill on 20th July.

Ministers have considered impacts with regard to all relevant legal obligations when formulating the welfare policies announced in the Bill.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-01-06.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 15 December 2015 by the Minister for Skills, Official Report, column 1401, if he will introduce a levy to continue to fund action against loan sharks by the National Illegal Money Lending Team.

Harriett Baldwin

The Government is looking at a range of ways to ensure that the England and Wales Illegal Money Lending Teams have the funding they need to ensure that consumers continue to be protected from illegal loan sharks.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-01-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether NHS bodies which carry out surgery to repair work performed by outsourcing companies are able to claim back the costs of carrying out that work.

George Freeman

Whether or not National Health Service bodies are able to claim back the costs depends on a number of circumstances. For instance:

– A clinical commissioning group (CCG) may have placed a contract for elective surgery with an independent sector provider. A patient treated in this provider’s hospital may experience complications and require further treatment, which has to be arranged under the CCG’s separate contract with the local NHS trust or foundation trust (FT) (perhaps because it has the facilities to carry out more specialist treatment); or

– An NHS trust or FT may sub-contract surgical procedures to an independent sector provider. Again, a patient treated at the sub-contractor’s hospital may experience complications and require further treatment, which has to be carried out by the NHS Trust or FT (again, because it has the facilities to carry out more specialist treatment).

The terms of such subcontracts are not nationally prescribed, but it would be usual for such a sub-contract to require the sub-contractor to indemnify the NHS provider for the cost it incurs as a result of negligent or inadequate treatment on the part of the sub-contractor.

However, it is important to be clear that complications after surgery are not necessarily associated with negligence. It is normal for patients experiencing complications to be referred to the hospital which can provide the best care. In these circumstances, each NHS provider will normally be paid by the relevant NHS commissioner for the specific service it has provided to the patient.

In the first example, the NHS trust or FT will be paid in full by its local CCG for the further treatment it has provided, at the normal national prices laid down in the National Tariff Payment System. Normally, the CCG would also have paid for the initial treatment provided by the independent sector provider, but if there is evidence of breach of contract or negligence, the CCG would be entitled to be indemnified for the additional costs of further treatment.

In the second example, the NHS provider is responsible to the commissioner both for the treatment it has carried out itself and under sub-contract by the independent sector provider. It will therefore be paid by its CCG at National Tariff prices for all the operations that have been undertaken at both hospitals – though, again, this would be subject to the potential for the CCG to withhold payment to in a clear case of negligence or breach of contractual requirements. Payment between the NHS provider and its sub-contractor would be a matter for those parties to agree locally between themselves, as a part of their sub-contract.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether he plans to respond to people in Moseley in Birmingham who have written to him to express their opposition to proposed boundary changes; and if he will take their views into account in considering such changes.

Mr Marcus Jones

People who have written to the Secretary of State about the electoral review in Birmingham have received a response explaining that the Secretary of State has no role in this matter which, in accordance with the statute, is being undertaken by the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England. This Commission is a Parliamentary body which will lay before Parliament a draft of any Order it intends to make to implement the electoral review; the Commission will consider any representations it receives about the review before laying such an Order.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the key findings in the Chief Schools Adjudicator for England’s Annual Report, published in December 2015, whether she plans to publish guidance for schools on how best to comply with the school admissions code.

Nick Gibb

Admission authorities for all state-funded schools are required to comply with the School Admissions Code. This includes a requirement that ‘parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places for that school will be allocated’. We consider that the code provides clear advice to all admission authorities.

Compliance is enforced by the Schools Adjudicator. Where an objection is made and the adjudicator finds that the arrangements are unclear, unfair, or that they otherwise fail to comply with the code, the admission authority is required by law to change the policy.

The degree to which maintained schools comply with the code is monitored through the Chief Adjudicator’s Annual Report. We consider the findings of the report and whether changes to the system are necessary.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-02-25.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any of his Department’s advisors received a pay rise of more than one per cent in the last two financial years.

Harriett Baldwin

I refer the Honourable member to the answer given my Rt Hon. friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (26025)

Like any employer, HM Treasury does not discuss individual personnel matters, however details on the remuneration of Special Advisers appointed in the current Government and information on the remuneration of Special Advisers during the Coalition Government are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/special-adviser-data-releases-numbers-and-costs

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-11.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the effect of UK policies on tax and overseas territories on the effectiveness of Government steps to tackle global poverty.

Mr David Gauke

The Government is committed to tackling global poverty and to a fair and transparent global tax system.

Following the lead taken by the UK in its G8 Presidency, each of the UK’s Overseas Territories with a recognised financial centre has committed to automatic exchange of information with over 90 jurisdictions worldwide. The Territories have also joined the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters providing a legal gateway for exchange of information with a large number of countries, including developing countries which have joined the Convention.

The Government wants all countries, including developing countries, to be able to take advantage of exchange of information, both on request and automatically. The Department for International Development (DFID) funds the Global Forum and World Bank to support developing countries in implementing exchange of information systems, and last year the Government announced a partnership with the Ghana revenue authority to pilot the new standard on automatic exchange of information.

The UK has also been at the forefront of recent international efforts to align the taxation of profits with economic activity through the G20-OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. This project, which involved tax officials from over 120 countries, represents the most comprehensive attempt to reform the international tax rules since they were first drafted in the 1920s. All countries will be able to benefit from these changes to the international tax system, but some will require additional support if they are to do so. International organisations are therefore producing practical toolkits to help developing countries implement BEPS standards and DFID is funding international organisations to assist developing countries in obtaining technical assistance on issues such as transfer pricing.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a deposit return scheme for single use drinks containers to reduce litter.

Rory Stewart

Defra analysed the costs and benefits of implementing a deposit return system (DRS) for single use drink containers as part of the 2011 Review of Waste Policy in England, and sought views in the 2012 consultation on higher packaging recycling targets.

This work showed that introducing a DRS may increase recycling and reduce litter but might impose additional costs on businesses, consumers and local authorities (which would lose revenue from recycling). However, we lack evidence to quantify these benefits and costs appropriately. The current approach has driven a significant increase in packaging waste recycling rates, from less than 47% in 2003 to nearly 65% in 2013.

Last year, the Scottish Government published a feasibility study and a call for evidence investigating the implementation of a DRS for single use drink containers in Scotland. This valuable work highlighted significant uncertainties regarding the impacts and benefits that a DRS would have, notably regarding costs, environmental quality and littering, and existing waste collection systems. The Scottish Government is doing further work on the topic and we will review any new evidence arising from this in due course. However, in the meantime, we will continue to focus on improving existing waste collection and recycling systems, and developing a new National Litter Strategy for England to help coordinate and maximise the impact of anti-litter activity by local government, industry and others.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-04-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for what reasons the Government did not meet Olivier Bancoult, Chair of the Chagos Refugees Group, during his recent visit to the UK.

James Duddridge

I am not aware of any invitations to the government to meet Mr Bancoult during his recent visit to the UK. Officials who were asked whether they might wish to meet Mr Bancoult were concerned about the propriety and appropriateness of doing so at a time when he is litigating against the Government.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that Syrian children given asylum in the UK will be able to enter in time for the start of the school year in September.

James Brokenshire

The Syrian resettlement scheme has already provided safe haven to more than 1,000 vulnerable Syrians since the scheme was expanded in September 2015. More than half of these were children and we expect children to make up a significant proportion of the 20,000 resettlement places we are providing under the scheme.

In addition, we have committed to resettling up to 3,000 individuals from the Middle East and North Africa over the lifetime of this Parliament through the resettlement scheme announced on 21 April for children at risk and their family members. As announced by the Prime Minister on 4 May and now reflected in the Immigration Act 2016, we will also work to admit unaccompanied refugee children to the UK from elsewhere in the EU, where this is considered to be in the child’s best interests. Work has begun on how best to implement the legislation and we are committed to act as quickly as we can, while ensuring that we have the necessary services in place to care for these children alongside those who are already in the UK and have claimed asylum here.

We also continue to work closely with France and other EU Member States to ensure that arrangements for transferring asylum cases under the Dublin Regulation are operating as effectively as possible. A senior UK official was seconded to the French Dublin Unit to assist with the identification and transfer of cases and since February more than 20 children have been transferred to the UK from France and there are many other cases in train.

All Syrian and other children brought to the UK will be given the care, support and education they require.