1-20 of 241 results for subject:Disability
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.266 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.016 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Disability
- We searched for
- subject_t:Disability OR subject_t:Disabled OR subject_t:"Disabled people" OR subject_t:Handicapped OR subject_t:"Physically disabled" OR subject_ses:90918
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reason applications for Access to Work from self-employed customers are not being allocated for processing until over 18 months from the date of receipt; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of delays on disabled...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reason applications for Access to Work from self-employed customers are not being allocated for processing until over 18 months from the date of receipt; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of delays on disabled...
Delays in allocating Access to Work applications for self‑employed customers are due to high demand and the additional complexity of these cases, which often require further evidence such as tax and income details.
The Department recognises the impact of these delays, particularly for disabled applicants without employer support. To address this, steps have been taken to recruit additional staff to clear the backlog and improve processing times: Huge recruitment boost to tackle backlog in vital disability work scheme - GOV.UK.
Priority is given to customers starting work within four weeks and to those renewing awards, to minimise disruption to employment.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many and what proportion of the claimants to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme for disability caused by the Covid-19 vaccinations received their first vaccine in (a) January to March 2021, (b) April to June 2021 and (c) July...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many and what proportion of the claimants to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme for disability caused by the Covid-19 vaccinations received their first vaccine in (a) January to March 2021, (b) April to June 2021 and (c) July...
As of 5 January 2024, of the 8778 COVID-19 related applications to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, 4658 applications or 53.06% related to a first vaccination received between January and March 2021; 2028 applications or 23.10% related to a first vaccination received between April and June 2021; and 516 applications or 5.88% related to a first vaccination received between July and September 2021.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many (a) claims to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme for disability caused by the Covid-19 vaccines and (b) applications for mandatory reversals to such claims, have been outstanding for more than (i) 18 months, (ii) 12 months and...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many (a) claims to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme for disability caused by the Covid-19 vaccines and (b) applications for mandatory reversals to such claims, have been outstanding for more than (i) 18 months, (ii) 12 months and...
As of 5 January 2024, of the claims submitted to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme relating to COVID-19, 157 claims have been outstanding for more than 18 months; 341 claims have been outstanding for over 12 months and 1854 claims have been outstanding for over six months.
Of these claims, no mandatory reversals have been submitted that have been outstanding for over 18 months; 18 mandatory reversal applications have been outstanding for over 12 months, and 124 mandatory reversal applications have been outstanding for over six months.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September to Question 197988 on Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme: Coronavirus, how many and what proportion of the 221 claims rejected due to not meeting the 60% disability threshold would have met a disability...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September to Question 197988 on Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme: Coronavirus, how many and what proportion of the 221 claims rejected due to not meeting the 60% disability threshold would have met a disability...
Of the 221 COVID-19 related claims rejected due to not meeting the 60% disability threshold, as of 1 September 2023, only nine, or 4%, potentially would have met a disability threshold of 50%; 34, or 15%, potentially would have met a disability threshold of 40%; 73, or 33%, potentially would have met a disability threshold of 30%; and 116, or 53%, potentially would have met a disability threshold of 20%. The data for lower thresholds is cumulative and includes claims that would meet a higher threshold.
The Government’s initiative to emphasise the need to improve health outcomes is fundamental to this. May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to today’s edition of the Daily Express and its Justice for Jab Victims crusade? A two- page article describes the problems that thousands of people are experiencing as...
The Government’s initiative to emphasise the need to improve health outcomes is fundamental to this. May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to today’s edition of the Daily Express and its Justice for Jab Victims crusade? A two- page article describes the problems that thousands of people are experiencing as...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many applications for compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 were rejected in (a) 2019 and (b) 2020 as a result of the threshold requirement of 60 percent disability not being reached; and in how many of those...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many applications for compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 were rejected in (a) 2019 and (b) 2020 as a result of the threshold requirement of 60 percent disability not being reached; and in how many of those...
The Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (VDPS) provides a one-off tax free payment, currently £120,000, to those people who are severely disabled as a result of vaccination against a specified disease, within the meaning of the Act.
It is not compensation. It is a payment to help ease the financial burden for those individuals where, on very rare occasions, vaccination has caused severe disablement.
To qualify for a Vaccine Damage Payment, two legal tests have to be met:
- establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the disablement was caused by vaccination covered by the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS);
- the resulting disablement is severe disablement (60% or more)
The majority of claims to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme are turned down on the basis of medical assessments that have concluded, vaccination did not cause the disability.
In 2019 1 claim was rejected as a result of the threshold requirement of 60 percent disability not being reached. The figure for 2020 is Zero.
The actual percentage of disablement is not recorded by the Vaccine Damage Payments Unit.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many applications have been made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 for compensation arising from disability caused by covid-19 vaccinations; and how many of those applications have (a) been successful, (b) been rejected and (c) are under...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many applications have been made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 for compensation arising from disability caused by covid-19 vaccinations; and how many of those applications have (a) been successful, (b) been rejected and (c) are under...
The Vaccine Damage Payment scheme is administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. As of 23 June, there have been 154 applications received under the scheme linked to COVID-19 vaccines, all of which have been acknowledged and claimants will be contacted if further information is required or when a decision is made on their claim.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), and I am sorry to hear about the problems afflicting so many of his constituents in Hartlepool.
It was great to be in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond...
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), and I am sorry to hear about the problems afflicting so many of his constituents in Hartlepool.
It was great to be in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond...
Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just said applies particularly to the university environment, where this year more university students will probably die from meningitis than from covid-19?
Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just said applies particularly to the university environment, where this year more university students will probably die from meningitis than from covid-19?
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when his Department plans to respond to the consultation which closed in September 2018 in relation to a requirement for all buses to have audiovisual next stop and final destination announcements as enabled by the Bus Services Act 2017.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when his Department plans to respond to the consultation which closed in September 2018 in relation to a requirement for all buses to have audiovisual next stop and final destination announcements as enabled by the Bus Services Act 2017.
The Government understands the importance of accessible on-board information in helping bus passengers to travel with confidence, and in Summer 2018 published a consultation on proposals to require its provision on local bus services throughout Great Britain. This follows the Government’s commitment, set out in the Inclusive Transport Strategy, to invest £2 million towards ensuring that audio visual equipment is installed on buses.
We continue to analyse responses to the consultation and expect to announce our next steps regarding the making of Regulations and publication of guidance later in the year.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped...
The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped...
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that that is the situation. It would therefore be apposite for me to make a few introductory remarks by saying that I, the petitioners and others much appreciate how the Bill’s promoters have responded positively to many of the points that...
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that that is the situation. It would therefore be apposite for me to make a few introductory remarks by saying that I, the petitioners and others much appreciate how the Bill’s promoters have responded positively to many of the points that...
I think the principle is that if the farmers—I know my hon. Friend has a significant interest in farming—are going to benefit from land drainage schemes, and this is essentially one mega land drainage scheme, I do not see why they should not have to pay for the benefit that...
I think the principle is that if the farmers—I know my hon. Friend has a significant interest in farming—are going to benefit from land drainage schemes, and this is essentially one mega land drainage scheme, I do not see why they should not have to pay for the benefit that...
I am not briefed to have an answer to that. All I can do is make the general comment that this has been raised by the March Cruising Club, which I imagine would not be concerned about it if it was not a problem. The March Cruising Club believes it...
I am not briefed to have an answer to that. All I can do is make the general comment that this has been raised by the March Cruising Club, which I imagine would not be concerned about it if it was not a problem. The March Cruising Club believes it...
I am glad my hon. Friend agrees that the provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand why he thinks requiring them to be provided in the Bill is not a good idea.
I am glad my hon. Friend agrees that the provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand why he thinks requiring them to be provided in the Bill is not a good idea.
Ultimately, it is an issue of trust as to whether or not the undertakings given will be honoured. We have precedents from other private Bills in this House—for example, the north London cemetery Bill—where the promotors have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means giving an undertaking, which was...
Ultimately, it is an issue of trust as to whether or not the undertakings given will be honoured. We have precedents from other private Bills in this House—for example, the north London cemetery Bill—where the promotors have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means giving an undertaking, which was...
We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set...
We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set...
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4
was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed....
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4
was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed....
I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who speaks on behalf of the promoters, saying from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is wrong about that. Let us wait until we discuss clause 4, which was introduced in Committee, to see...
I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who speaks on behalf of the promoters, saying from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is wrong about that. Let us wait until we discuss clause 4, which was introduced in Committee, to see...