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 answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

890164

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission
answering dept id	36
answering dept short name	Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission
answering dept sort name	Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission
hansard heading	Local Government: Elections
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Committee has made of the potential effect on the Electoral Commission's future expenditure of the abolition of the election of councillors to local authorities by halves or thirds.
tabling member constituency	North East Hampshire
tabling member printed	Mr Ranil Jayawardena
uin	904969
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/04/2018 answer text <p>The Electoral Commission has made no assessment of the impact on its future expenditure if legislation was to be brought forward and approved to abolish elections by halves or thirds for all English local authorities.</p> answering member constituency Houghton and Sunderland South answering member printed Bridget Phillipson question first answered 26/04/2018 08:47:32 answering member 4046 label Biography information for Bridget Phillipson
tabling member	4498 label Biography information for Mr Ranil Jayawardena

890275

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Lipoedema
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what estimate he has made of the cost of Lipedema to the (a) NHS and (b) economy in lost working days in the last twelve months.
tabling member constituency	East Worthing and Shoreham
tabling member printed	Tim Loughton
uin	137380
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2018 answer text <p>The Department has made no estimate on the cost of Lipedema to the National Health Service and to the economy.</p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 27/04/2018 13:15:08 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	114 label Biography information for Tim Loughton

890276

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Broadcasting: Equality
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what discussions he has had with broadcasters on the omission of religion as a category in the diversity monitoring system Project Diamond.
tabling member constituency	Manchester, Gorton
tabling member printed	Afzal Khan
uin	137661
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/05/2018 answer text <p>We expect broadcasters to voluntarily publish their data on all diversity characteristics - not just those they are legally obliged to - and the BBC should be leading the way on this.There have been no discussions with broadcasters regarding Project Diamond monitoring categories. Project Diamond is an industry led monitoring scheme owned by the Creative Diversity Network which is made up of all of the UK’s major broadcasters. Therefore, the decision to include or exclude categories is for the Creative Diversity Network alone.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Stourbridge answering member printed Margot James grouped question UIN 137662 question first answered 02/05/2018 13:02:11 answering member 4115 label Biography information for Margot James
tabling member	4671 label Biography information for Afzal Khan

890277

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Broadcasting: Equality
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what discussions he has had with the BBC on (a) the omission of religion in the diversity monitoring system Project Diamond and (b) the effect of that omission on on-off screen diversity monitoring of faith groups working in or with that public service broadcaster.
tabling member constituency	Manchester, Gorton
tabling member printed	Afzal Khan
uin	137662
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/05/2018 answer text <p>We expect broadcasters to voluntarily publish their data on all diversity characteristics - not just those they are legally obliged to - and the BBC should be leading the way on this.There have been no discussions with broadcasters regarding Project Diamond monitoring categories. Project Diamond is an industry led monitoring scheme owned by the Creative Diversity Network which is made up of all of the UK’s major broadcasters. Therefore, the decision to include or exclude categories is for the Creative Diversity Network alone.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Stourbridge answering member printed Margot James grouped question UIN 137661 question first answered 02/05/2018 13:02:11 answering member 4115 label Biography information for Margot James
tabling member	4671 label Biography information for Afzal Khan

890278

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Veterans: Health Services
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the pilot scheme for the Integrated Personal Care for Veterans’ System.
tabling member constituency	Plymouth, Moor View
tabling member printed	Johnny Mercer
uin	137605
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2018 answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence (MOD) recognises that there is a small and defined cohort of Service personnel and veterans who have been very seriously injured as a result of service, and who will remain highly dependent, requiring additional support as they transition into civilian life. The aim of the Integrated Personal Commissioning for Veterans (IPC4V) system is to provide patient-centred support to improve the integration of health and social care for that cohort whether provided by the MOD, NHS, Local Government or the third sector.</p><p>Currently at the proof of concept phase, it is anticipated that the adequacy of IPC4V can be assessed over autumn 2018.</p><p>In the interests of patient confidentiality we are unable to disclose the number of individuals taking part in the pilot.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 137606 question first answered 27/04/2018 13:19:23 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
tabling member	4485 label Biography information for Johnny Mercer

890279

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Veterans: Health Services
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many (a) very seriously injured and (b) brain injured veterans have been supported through the Integrated Personal Care for Veterans System pilot scheme.
tabling member constituency	Plymouth, Moor View
tabling member printed	Johnny Mercer
uin	137606
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2018 answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence (MOD) recognises that there is a small and defined cohort of Service personnel and veterans who have been very seriously injured as a result of service, and who will remain highly dependent, requiring additional support as they transition into civilian life. The aim of the Integrated Personal Commissioning for Veterans (IPC4V) system is to provide patient-centred support to improve the integration of health and social care for that cohort whether provided by the MOD, NHS, Local Government or the third sector.</p><p>Currently at the proof of concept phase, it is anticipated that the adequacy of IPC4V can be assessed over autumn 2018.</p><p>In the interests of patient confidentiality we are unable to disclose the number of individuals taking part in the pilot.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 137605 question first answered 27/04/2018 13:19:23 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
tabling member	4485 label Biography information for Johnny Mercer

890280

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 17 of the Quinquennial Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme ‘One Year On’ Report, published on 9 April 2018, what estimate he has made of the number of service personnel with (a) the most serious injuries and (b) brain injuries that will qualify for the (i) uplift of the top tariff level 1 award and (ii) increase the cap on the cumulative lump sum for multiple awards.
tabling member constituency	Plymouth, Moor View
tabling member printed	Johnny Mercer
uin	137607
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/04/2018 answer text <p>The amendments to Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) legislation from 9 April 2018 are not retrospective. Eligible Service personnel who make AFCS claims from 9 April 2018 will benefit from the uplifts and increases in compensation values.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 30/04/2018 16:17:06 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood previous answer version 54704 answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
tabling member	4485 label Biography information for Johnny Mercer

890281

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Osteoporosis: Fractures
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to help prevent osteoporosis breaks; and what drugs are available from the NHS for people with that condition reduce the risk of repeat fractures.
tabling member constituency	Strangford
tabling member printed	Jim Shannon
uin	137543
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/05/2018 answer text <p>In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published best practice clinical guidance on assessing the risk of fragility fracture. It aims to provide guidance on the selection and use of risk assessment tools in the care of adults at risk of fragility fractures in all National Health Service settings. The guidance recommends that clinicians consider assessment of fracture risk in all women aged 65 years and over and all men aged 75 years and over. Women aged less than 65 years and men aged less than 75 years should be considered for assessment in the presence of certain risk factors, such as a family history of hip fracture or low body mass index. The guidance can be found at the following link:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg146" target="_blank">www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg146</a></p><p> </p><p>There are a number of therapies and treatments available for the prevention of fragility fractures in people who are assessed as being at risk, or to prevent further fractures in those who have already had one or more fragility fractures. Drugs available to help maintain bone density include: bone sparing agents, such as bisphosphonates; calcium and vitamin D supplements; and certain hormone based treatments.</p><p> </p><p>Locally commissioned fracture liaison services (FLS) can also play a key role in reducing the risk of fracture in patients. These services systematically and proactively identify patients in secondary and/or primary care who have suffered a fragility fracture and assess the patient’s risk of future fragility fracture in a timely fashion. FLS then provide advice and/or therapy to reduce that risk. There is good evidence that these services are cost-effective and can result in a reduction in the incidence of fragility fractures in the local population. NHS England has developed a Falls and Fragility Fractures Pathway in partnership with Public Health England and the National Osteoporosis Society, as part of its Rightcare programme. Rightcare highlights the high value interventions that systems should focus on to address variation, improve outcomes, reduce cost and contribute toward a sustainable NHS. More information about the pathway can be found at the following link:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/products/pathways/falls-and-fragility-fractures-pathway/" target="_blank">www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/products/pathways/falls-and-fragility-fractures-pathway/</a></p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 02/05/2018 15:22:25 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	4131 label Biography information for Jim Shannon

890282

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Postnatal Care
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for what reason the General Medical Contract includes a requirement for GP practices to undertake a check of a baby but not a mother at six weeks post-natally despite guidance by NICE that a new mother's physical emotional and social well being should be reviewed at that time; and if he will take steps to ensure that such a check of a mother is undertaken at that time.
tabling member constituency	East Worthing and Shoreham
tabling member printed	Tim Loughton
uin	137381
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2018 answer text <p>The General Medical Service contract sets out that where a general practitioner (GP) practice provides maternity medical services, the practice is required to provide to female patients and their babies all necessary maternity medical services throughout the postnatal period other than neonatal checks. The GP contract regulations define the postnatal period as “the period beginning with the conclusion of the delivery of the baby or the patient’s discharge from secondary care services (whichever is the later) and ending on the fourteenth day after the birth”.</p><p> </p><p>Any changes to GP contracting arrangements to specifically include a six week postnatal check-up would need to be negotiated with the General Practitioners’ Committee of the British Medical Association as part of the annual contract negotiations.</p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 27/04/2018 13:12:49 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	114 label Biography information for Tim Loughton

890283

registered interest
date	24/04/2018
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	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 8 February to Question 126582 on asylum: finance, what criteria her Department uses to assess its business needs; and to which actions her Department will allocate funding in 2018.
tabling member constituency	Manchester, Gorton
tabling member printed	Afzal Khan
uin	137663
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/05/2018 answer text <p>Management of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) in the UK is vested in the European Funding Team acting as the AMIF Responsible Authority (UKRA).</p><p> </p><p>The UKRA manages the funds to try and meet the objectives set out in the published AMIF National Programme, set out in Section 5 of the programme on ‘Common Indicators’. This is what the UK set out to achieve with AMIF funding over the course of the programme. The UKRA will review progress against these objectives when deciding where to focus funding, whilst still looking at funding across the programme objectives.</p><p> </p><p>AMIF has 3 Specific Objectives that the UK takes part in, Asylum, Integration and Returns. In the initial National Programme the UK agreed to fund these objectives at 20% of the allocation for each of Asylum and Integration, with 54% allocated to Returns activities. There was a slight re-prioritisation of funds from Returns to Integration as a result of a mid-term review with the European Commission, based on the larger number of refugees in the UK since the Programme was drawn up in 2013.</p><p> </p><p>For the purpose of clarity it may be useful to set out the definition of AMIF funding years, in that it operates from 16/10/n – 15/10/n+1, therefore the 2018 AMIF year will be 16/10/17 – 15/10/18.</p><p> </p><p>Currently in the UK there are 14 AMIF funded projects, 6 under the Asylum objective, 2 under Integration and 6 under Returns. All these projects are operated by the Home Office. A complete list of funded projects is published on <a href="http://www.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.gov.uk</a>, for projects up to each July.</p><p> </p><p>The UKRA currently has an ‘open call for proposals’ asking for applications for funding for projects to deal with refugee integration. The value of this call for proposals is £40m. The closing date for applications is 09/05/18, with an expectation that successful applications will be starting from 01/08/18.</p><p> </p><p>For further information the UK Responsible Authority can be contacted at: <a href="mailto:AMIFEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk" target="_blank">AMIFEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk</a></p> answering member constituency Romsey and Southampton North answering member printed Caroline Nokes question first answered 08/05/2018 14:45:39 answering member 4048 label Biography information for Caroline Nokes
tabling member	4671 label Biography information for Afzal Khan