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 attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member
tabling member	label

Search

100139

registered interest
date	21/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Driving Offences: Fines
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps she is taking to better secure the payment of speeding fines by offenders whose vehicles are registered overseas.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	211277
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2014 answer text <p>This Government takes recovery and enforcement of financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to finding new ways to encourage payment of impositions and to trace those who do not pay. This is why there has been a year on year increase in the amount of financial penalties collected over the last three years.</p><p> </p><p>When it appears to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) that an offender is normally resident in another EU country HMCTS can transfer road traffic offence fines, imposed by courts in this country, to other EU jurisdictions for enforcement under the EU Framework Decision on Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties (MRFP). The Framework Decision obliges Member States to take over enforcement of eligible fines imposed by other Member States’ courts, where the offender is resident or has assets in the enforcing state. All monies collected however are retained by the enforcing Member State.</p><p> </p><p>Where the offender is resident in a non EU country or in one not included in the MRFP Framework there is no mechanism for HMCTS to be able to recover the amounts outstanding.</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to identify the value of fines outstanding which relate to motoring offences for offenders who live overseas without incurring disproportionate cost as this information could only be obtained by a manual search of all live fine accounts.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara grouped question UIN 211323 question first answered 27/10/2014 15:32:05 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

100186

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	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether missed or inadequate hydrocortisone administration is included in the NHS list of Never Events.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	211233
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>Missed or inadequate hydrocortisone administration is not currently included in the list of ‘never events’.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>We can confirm that the current list of Never Events is under review and there is a consultation underway which opened online on the 6 October 2014 and closes on 31 October 2014.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Mid Norfolk answering member printed George Freeman question first answered 28/10/2014 15:28:25 question first ministerially corrected 28/10/2014 16:30:53 answering member 4020 label Biography information for George Freeman previous answer version 24770 answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison answering member 3918
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

100259

registered interest
date	21/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Speed Limits: Fines
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of speeding fines incurred by motorists whose vehicle is registered overseas were paid in the latest period for which data is available.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	211323
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2014 answer text <p>This Government takes recovery and enforcement of financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to finding new ways to encourage payment of impositions and to trace those who do not pay. This is why there has been a year on year increase in the amount of financial penalties collected over the last three years.</p><p> </p><p>When it appears to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) that an offender is normally resident in another EU country HMCTS can transfer road traffic offence fines, imposed by courts in this country, to other EU jurisdictions for enforcement under the EU Framework Decision on Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties (MRFP). The Framework Decision obliges Member States to take over enforcement of eligible fines imposed by other Member States’ courts, where the offender is resident or has assets in the enforcing state. All monies collected however are retained by the enforcing Member State.</p><p> </p><p>Where the offender is resident in a non EU country or in one not included in the MRFP Framework there is no mechanism for HMCTS to be able to recover the amounts outstanding.</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to identify the value of fines outstanding which relate to motoring offences for offenders who live overseas without incurring disproportionate cost as this information could only be obtained by a manual search of all live fine accounts.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara grouped question UIN 211277 question first answered 27/10/2014 15:32:05 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91914

registered interest
date	26/09/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Change of Use
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether the proposed minimum space standards for adoption can be applied by local authorities to prior approval requests for conversions of offices to residential accommodation.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	209429
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/10/2014 answer text <p>The prior approval procedure for change of use from office to residential allows a local authority only to consider the transport and highways impacts of the development; contamination risks on the site; and flooding risks on the site. Permitted development rights are helping us to make more efficient use of our existing building stock and are bringing forward much needed new homes, including more studio and one bedroom flats for young people.</p><p> </p><p>The new dwellings would be subject to Housing Health and Safety Rating System regulations on space and crowding and many aspects of the building regulations including fire safety, sound insulation and energy efficiency.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 14/10/2014 16:20:50 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

92009

registered interest
date	26/09/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Better Care Fund
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which clinical commissioning groups and local authorities did not submit a compliant application to the Better Care Fund by the deadline of 19 September 2014.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	209343
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/10/2014 answer text <p>It is not currently possible to say in total how many of the Better Care Fund (BCF) plans that were submitted by 19 September are not “compliant” with the conditions of the Fund, as the plans are currently being assessed as part of the National Consistent Assurance Review. This process will be completed by the end of October.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>One area did not submit by the 19 September deadline and submitted their plan during the following week. This area was Surrey.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>One area did not submit a full BCF plan. This was Oxfordshire.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>All other areas submitted full BCF plans by 19 September.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North Norfolk answering member printed Norman Lamb question first answered 17/10/2014 12:37:40 answering member 1439 label Biography information for Norman Lamb
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91736

registered interest
date	12/09/2014
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Public Sector Debt: UN Resolutions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, why the UK voted against United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/68/L.57/Rev.1 Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	209159
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/10/2014 answer text <p>The Government is actively engaged in ongoing discussions in a number of international fora, to reform the framework for sovereign debt restructurings. As outlined in the joint-EU Explanation of Vote on this Resolution, the Government was not in a position to support this UN resolution given concerns over the lack of time afforded to members to discuss the complex issues it raised.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Northamptonshire answering member printed Andrea Leadsom grouped question UIN 209075 question first answered 13/10/2014 15:10:57 answering member 4117 label Biography information for Andrea Leadsom
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91478

registered interest
date	10/09/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Migrants: Detainees
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in how many cases detainees were not released automatically as a result of Rule 35 applications because her Department disputed medical evidence; and in how many such cases exceptional grounds were stated, by immigration removal centre, in (a) 2013 and (b) 2014 to date.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	209029
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to provide the numbers of detainees subject to a Rule 35 report who were not released from detention due to disputed medical evidence or in how many cases exceptional grounds were stated without examination of individual records at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire question first answered 24/09/2014 10:08:25 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91482

registered interest
date	10/09/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Migrants: Detainees
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Rule 35 applications have been submitted by healthcare providers in immigration removal centres, by immigration removal centre, in (a) 2013 and (b) 2014 to date.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	208963
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/10/2014 answer text <p>Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 sets out requirements for doctors at <br>immigration removal centres to report on: <br><br>(1) any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by <br>continued detention or any conditions of detention;<br>(2) any detained person suspected of having suicidal intentions; and<br>(3) any detained person for whom there are concerns that they may have been a <br>victim of torture.<br><br>The following table shows the number of Rule 35 applications submitted by <br>healthcare providers in immigration removal centres.<br><br>All figures quoted have been derived from management information and are <br>therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been <br>quality assured under National Statistics protocols.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The issue of a Rule 35 report does not mean that the detainee concerned will be <br>released automatically from detention, or even necessarily that the doctor <br>making the report will have recommended release. Rule 35 is a mechanism for <br>information to be brought to the attention of Home Office caseworkers so that <br>it may be considered and the person’s detention reviewed in light of it, in <br>line with detention policy. Whether or not an individual is released will <br>depend on the specific facts of the case. <br><br>All the Rule 35 applications submitted by healthcare providers in immigration <br>removal centres during the period in question were brought to the attention of <br>Home Office caseworkers and the person’s detention reviewed in line with <br>detention policy.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire grouped question UIN 208964 208965 question first answered 06/10/2014 14:49:50 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire attachment 1 file name PQ 208963 Excel Table.xls title Rule 35 applications
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91498

registered interest
date	10/09/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Migrants: Detainees
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in how many cases detainees were released automatically as a result of Rule 35 applications from each immigration removal centre in (a) 2013 and (b) 2014 to date.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	208964
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/10/2014 answer text <p>Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 sets out requirements for doctors at <br>immigration removal centres to report on: <br><br>(1) any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by <br>continued detention or any conditions of detention;<br>(2) any detained person suspected of having suicidal intentions; and<br>(3) any detained person for whom there are concerns that they may have been a <br>victim of torture.<br><br>The following table shows the number of Rule 35 applications submitted by <br>healthcare providers in immigration removal centres.<br><br>All figures quoted have been derived from management information and are <br>therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been <br>quality assured under National Statistics protocols.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The issue of a Rule 35 report does not mean that the detainee concerned will be <br>released automatically from detention, or even necessarily that the doctor <br>making the report will have recommended release. Rule 35 is a mechanism for <br>information to be brought to the attention of Home Office caseworkers so that <br>it may be considered and the person’s detention reviewed in light of it, in <br>line with detention policy. Whether or not an individual is released will <br>depend on the specific facts of the case. <br><br>All the Rule 35 applications submitted by healthcare providers in immigration <br>removal centres during the period in question were brought to the attention of <br>Home Office caseworkers and the person’s detention reviewed in line with <br>detention policy.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire grouped question UIN 208963 208965 question first answered 06/10/2014 14:49:50 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire attachment 1 file name PQ 208963 Excel Table.xls title Rule 35 applications
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith

91499

registered interest
date	10/09/2014
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Migrants: Detainees
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Rule 35 applications submitted by healthcare providers in each immigration removal centre received a response from her Department in (a) 2013 and (b) 2014 to date.
tabling member constituency	Oxford East
tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Smith
uin	208965
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/10/2014 answer text <p>Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 sets out requirements for doctors at <br>immigration removal centres to report on: <br><br>(1) any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by <br>continued detention or any conditions of detention;<br>(2) any detained person suspected of having suicidal intentions; and<br>(3) any detained person for whom there are concerns that they may have been a <br>victim of torture.<br><br>The following table shows the number of Rule 35 applications submitted by <br>healthcare providers in immigration removal centres.<br><br>All figures quoted have been derived from management information and are <br>therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been <br>quality assured under National Statistics protocols.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The issue of a Rule 35 report does not mean that the detainee concerned will be <br>released automatically from detention, or even necessarily that the doctor <br>making the report will have recommended release. Rule 35 is a mechanism for <br>information to be brought to the attention of Home Office caseworkers so that <br>it may be considered and the person’s detention reviewed in light of it, in <br>line with detention policy. Whether or not an individual is released will <br>depend on the specific facts of the case. <br><br>All the Rule 35 applications submitted by healthcare providers in immigration <br>removal centres during the period in question were brought to the attention of <br>Home Office caseworkers and the person’s detention reviewed in line with <br>detention policy.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire grouped question UIN 208963 208964 question first answered 06/10/2014 14:49:51 answering member 1530 label Biography information for James Brokenshire attachment 1 file name PQ 208963 Excel Table.xls title Rule 35 applications
tabling member	95 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Smith