Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100049

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	East Coast Main Line
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the long-term access rights for Grand Central on the East Coast Main Line require them to pay the same access charge as Intercity East Coast; and, if not, why not.
	tabling member printed	Lord Bradshaw
	uin	HL2255
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>Grand Central will not pay the same access charges as Intercity East Coast as Open Access Operators do not pay Fixed Track Access Charges (FTAC). However, both Franchised and Open Access Operators pay Variable Track Access Charges (VTAC) since these are set to reflect the direct ‘wear and tear’ costs that train services impose on the network when they are run.</p><p> </p><p>For Control Period 5 (CP5) the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has held <ins class="ministerial">the Capacity Charge element of VTAC at CP4 levels for services currently run by existing passenger Open Access Operators, however they will pay CP5 rates for any additional or new services whilst any new entrant Open Access Operator will pay CP4 rates on services below a set threshold and CP5 rates on services above that threshold. </ins><del class="ministerial">Open Access (both passenger and freight) VTAC at CP4 levels, whilst</del> Franchised Operators pay the new, higher CP5 rates<del class="ministerial">.</del> <ins class="ministerial">for both existing and new services.　 However, this is the only element of VTAC that is calculated on a different basis.</ins></p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Kramer question first answered 28/10/2014 15:24:42 question first ministerially corrected 12/01/2015 16:11:35 answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer previous answer version 24717 answering member printed Baroness Kramer answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer
	tabling member	2483 label Biography information for Lord Bradshaw

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

100157

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Energy and Climate Change
	answering dept id	63
	answering dept short name	Energy and Climate Change
	answering dept sort name	Energy and Climate Change
	hansard heading	Energy: Prices
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate he has made of the likely total allocation from the levy control framework for (a) feed in tariffs, (b) renewables obligations and (c) projects agreed under the final investment decision-enabling process in each year from 2015 to 2021.
	tabling member constituency	Rutherglen and Hamilton West
	tabling member printed	Tom Greatrex
	uin	211400
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>The projected allocation from the levy control framework for feed in tariffs, the renewables obligation and projects agreed under the final investment decision-enabling process in financial years from 2015/16 to 2020/21 <del class="ministerial">will be</del> <ins class="ministerial">is expected to be</ins> published in an annex (‘DECC’s Consumer Funded Policies – a report to Parliament’) to the Annual Energy Statement.</p><p>Publication of the Annual Energy Statement is expected in Autumn 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency West Suffolk answering member printed Matthew Hancock question first answered 24/10/2014 13:35:38 question first ministerially corrected 28/10/2014 16:37:54 answering member 4070 label Biography information for Matt Hancock previous answer version 24144 answering member constituency West Suffolk answering member printed Matthew Hancock answering member 4070 label Biography information for Matt Hancock
	tabling member	4047 label Biography information for Tom Greatrex

100036

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Accident and Emergency Departments
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the impact since 2009 of the closure of accident and emergency departments on neighbouring hospitals.
	tabling member printed	Baroness McDonagh
	uin	HL2242
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2014 answer text <p>The reconfiguration of local health services is a matter for the local National Health Service. All service changes should be led by clinicians and be in the best interests of patients, not driven from the top down.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is for NHS commissioners and providers to work together, with local authorities, patients and the public, in bringing forward proposals that will improve the quality, safety and sustainability of healthcare services.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Any changes must be supported by the Government’s four tests for service change, namely:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>- support from general practitioner commissioners;</p><p> </p><p>- clarity on the clinical evidence base;</p><p> </p><p>- robust patient and public engagement; and</p><p> </p><p>- support for patient choice.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Once a decision on a local case for change has been made, it is up to the NHS to ensure its local services meet the needs of its population.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>More generally, we would expect any local plans for changes to acute services to take full account of the impact on neighbouring hospitals.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 27/10/2014 12:41:26 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	3701 label Biography information for Baroness McDonagh

100056

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Education
	answering dept id	60
	answering dept short name	Education
	answering dept sort name	Education
	hansard heading	Obesity: Children
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to provide further advice to schools on how to tackle childhood obesity.
	tabling member printed	Lord Taylor of Warwick
	uin	HL2262
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>This Government recognises that through physical education, competitive school sport and encouraging healthy eating, schools can help address the problem of childhood obesity. The PE and sports premium is part of a package of measures to tackle obesity in primary schools. Our research found 96% of schools said that their pupils are now living healthier lives as a result of the funding. In addition, the introduction of universal infant free school meals will ensure that all infants receive a nutritious school lunch.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Nash question first answered 24/10/2014 12:35:00 answering member 4270 label Biography information for Lord Nash
	tabling member	1796 label Biography information for Lord Taylor of Warwick

100058

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Education
	answering dept id	60
	answering dept short name	Education
	answering dept sort name	Education
	hansard heading	Children: Poverty
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent report by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which suggests child poverty reduction targets will not be met, what steps they will take to ensure that those targets are met.
	tabling member printed	Lord Taylor of Warwick
	uin	HL2264
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2014 answer text <p>We remain committed to our goal of ending child poverty by 2020.</p><p>The ‘2014-17 Child Poverty Strategy’, published in June this year, outlines our plans to tackle the root causes of poverty, by:</p><ol><li>Raising the incomes of poor children’s families by helping them get into work and making work pay.</li><li>Supporting the living standards of low-income families.</li><li>Raising educational outcomes of poor children.</li></ol><p>Work remains the best route out of poverty. That is why the Government is introducing Universal Credit which will lift around 300,000 children out of poverty due to increased entitlements. This Government is also focused on breaking the cycle of poor children going on to become poor adults. That is why the Government has introduced policies - such as the pupil premium, worth £2.5 billion in 2014-15, to support poor children to reach their full potential and close the attainment gap between them and their more advantaged peers.</p><p>The Government will publish a response to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission Report in due course.</p> answering member printed Lord Nash question first answered 27/10/2014 17:32:36 answering member 4270 label Biography information for Lord Nash
	tabling member	1796 label Biography information for Lord Taylor of Warwick

100071

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Asylum: Finance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have assessed the effectiveness of the combination of the Azure payment card and support under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in enabling refused asylum seekers to meet their basic needs.
	tabling member printed	Lord Roberts of Llandudno
	uin	HL2277
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Azure card is issued to destitute failed asylum seekers accommodated under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because they are temporarily unable to leave the United Kingdom. The card can be used at most of the main supermarket chains to purchase food and other essential items. The performance of the card is kept under regular review but the Government is satisfied that it is an effective way of ensuring that recipients are able to meet their essential living needs and are not left destitute.</p><p> </p><p>The Government therefore has no plans to abolish the card or change legislation to allow people supported under section 4 to receive cash instead.</p><p> </p><p>The total administrative costs of the card scheme since it was introduced in 2009 are approximately £1,515,000. Estimated administrative costs for the current financial year are £200,000.</p><p> </p><p>The Government published its response to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report about asylum procedures in December 2013 (cm 8769). A response to the Committee’s views on section 4 support was set out on page 18-19.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL2278 HL2279 HL2280 HL2281 question first answered 28/10/2014 15:17:54 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
	tabling member	3691 label Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno

100072

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Asylum: Finance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to abolish the Azure payment card and amend legislation to enable the provision of cash support for all refused asylum seekers until they are either given status in the United Kingdom or return to their country of origin.
	tabling member printed	Lord Roberts of Llandudno
	uin	HL2278
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Azure card is issued to destitute failed asylum seekers accommodated under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because they are temporarily unable to leave the United Kingdom. The card can be used at most of the main supermarket chains to purchase food and other essential items. The performance of the card is kept under regular review but the Government is satisfied that it is an effective way of ensuring that recipients are able to meet their essential living needs and are not left destitute.</p><p> </p><p>The Government therefore has no plans to abolish the card or change legislation to allow people supported under section 4 to receive cash instead.</p><p> </p><p>The total administrative costs of the card scheme since it was introduced in 2009 are approximately £1,515,000. Estimated administrative costs for the current financial year are £200,000.</p><p> </p><p>The Government published its response to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report about asylum procedures in December 2013 (cm 8769). A response to the Committee’s views on section 4 support was set out on page 18-19.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL2277 HL2279 HL2280 HL2281 question first answered 28/10/2014 15:17:55 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
	tabling member	3691 label Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno

100073

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Asylum: Finance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much they have spent on administering the Azure card system since its inception.
	tabling member printed	Lord Roberts of Llandudno
	uin	HL2279
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Azure card is issued to destitute failed asylum seekers accommodated under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because they are temporarily unable to leave the United Kingdom. The card can be used at most of the main supermarket chains to purchase food and other essential items. The performance of the card is kept under regular review but the Government is satisfied that it is an effective way of ensuring that recipients are able to meet their essential living needs and are not left destitute.</p><p> </p><p>The Government therefore has no plans to abolish the card or change legislation to allow people supported under section 4 to receive cash instead.</p><p> </p><p>The total administrative costs of the card scheme since it was introduced in 2009 are approximately £1,515,000. Estimated administrative costs for the current financial year are £200,000.</p><p> </p><p>The Government published its response to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report about asylum procedures in December 2013 (cm 8769). A response to the Committee’s views on section 4 support was set out on page 18-19.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL2277 HL2278 HL2280 HL2281 question first answered 28/10/2014 15:17:55 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
	tabling member	3691 label Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno

100074

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Asylum: Finance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their forecast annual cost for administering the Azure card payment scheme in the coming year.
	tabling member printed	Lord Roberts of Llandudno
	uin	HL2280
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Azure card is issued to destitute failed asylum seekers accommodated under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because they are temporarily unable to leave the United Kingdom. The card can be used at most of the main supermarket chains to purchase food and other essential items. The performance of the card is kept under regular review but the Government is satisfied that it is an effective way of ensuring that recipients are able to meet their essential living needs and are not left destitute.</p><p> </p><p>The Government therefore has no plans to abolish the card or change legislation to allow people supported under section 4 to receive cash instead.</p><p> </p><p>The total administrative costs of the card scheme since it was introduced in 2009 are approximately £1,515,000. Estimated administrative costs for the current financial year are £200,000.</p><p> </p><p>The Government published its response to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report about asylum procedures in December 2013 (cm 8769). A response to the Committee’s views on section 4 support was set out on page 18-19.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL2277 HL2278 HL2279 HL2281 question first answered 28/10/2014 15:17:56 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
	tabling member	3691 label Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno