Category: Speeches

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps have been taken to speed up completion of the impact assessment for the Trade Union Bill.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has published detailed Impact Assessments for the Bill – on the Trade Union Bill, on the Reporting of Facility Time in the Public Sector, and on the Prohibition on Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector. At a meeting with Peers in December, Ministers committed to publishing prior to the Lords Committee stage of the Bill, and they were published in good time on 21 January.

    The Trade Union Bill’s impact assessment has been subject to scrutiny by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, and its opinion has been published alongside the impact assessment.

    They were reviewed and approved by the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office. The Permanent Secretary has been kept informed of progress on all stages of the Bill.

    Policy officials and analysts in both Departments have worked together to produce the impact assessments as quickly as possible while ensuring that the analysis was thorough.

    We have not asked civil servants working on the Bill in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office to fill out time sheets.

    We do not record which particular documents each special adviser reads. Special advisers have access to departmental papers in line with the Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct and provide advice to Ministers.

    I am placing copies of the relevant documentation in the Library.

  • Martyn Day – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Martyn Day – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Martyn Day on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if the Prime Minister will make it his policy to devolve responsibilities for the North Sea oil industry to the Scottish Government.

    David Mundell

    The UK Government does not intend to devolve responsibility for the North Sea oil industry.

    The Smith Commission Agreement, agreed by all of Scotland’s main parties, was clear on the powers that would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and the Scotland Bill, currently before Parliament, delivers these powers in full.

    The Smith Commission agreed that all aspects of the taxation of oil and gas receipts and the licensing of offshore oil and gas extraction would remain reserved.

  • Kelvin Hopkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Kelvin Hopkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kelvin Hopkins on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of the rail network that will be driver-only operated by (a) 2020 and (b) 2025.

    Claire Perry

    Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. Therefore, no such estimate has been made.

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of introducing non-invasive prenatal testing on the prevalence of sex-selective abortions.

    Ben Gummer

    The UK National Screening Committee which advises Ministers and the National Health Service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy has conducted a full review of the published scientific and cost evidence relating to Non-Invasive Pre-Natal Testing (NIPT) as a screening test for Down’s, Edwards’ and Patau’s syndromes. On 15 January 2016, the Committee announced its recommendation that NIPT should be introduced as an additional test into NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme as part of an evaluation. This is because the evidence suggests that NIPT is much more accurate than the current testing used in screening and can substantially reduce the number of pregnant women needing an invasive test, which carries a high risk of miscarriage. Ministers are currently considering this recommendation.

    The possible introduction of NIPT into the NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme does not fundamentally alter the choices presented to prospective parents, or the options and choices available when testing identifies a feotus with a syndrome. Therefore, no assessment has been made of the impact of NIPT on the number of abortions.

    NIPT testing as part of the NHS Foetal Anomaly Screening Programme will not be used to determine the sex of the foetus. Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraph 3.2 of his Department’s document, Implementing the replacement for the Horserace Betting Levy, published in March 2016, what progress has been made on the independent report on the value of the common interest between betting and racing; and when he expects to publish the findings of that report.

    David Evennett

    The rate payable by gambling operators will be informed by this independent economic analysis of the funding of horseracing and further discussion with the betting and racing industries. We will be consulting on the findings of the report with both industries within the next few weeks and intend to publish the report in due course.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 20 June 2016 to Question 40384, on Govia Thameslink Railway, whether Ministers requested a copy of the modelling analysis after those discussions; whether minutes were taken of those discussions; what questions Ministers asked during those discussions; and if he will make a statement.

    Claire Perry

    Following the disruption to rail services at London Bridge early in 2015 I held discussions with Network Rail to understand the root cause and seek reassurance as to how to prevent similar occurrences. My officials subsequently discussed my concerns about the modelling analysis with Network Rail.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many detainees who have medical evidence that they are vulnerable persons have suffered (a) state and (b) non-state violence.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Information on the reasons for a claim for asylum is not readily accessible from central statistical records and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost through a manual search of individual case files.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Dan Jarvis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether reducing incidents of negligent care will be the primary focus of the Government’s proposed package of reforms aimed at reducing costs in medical negligence litigation.

    Ben Gummer

    Over the past 10 years claimant legal costs as a percentage of damages paid by the National Health Service have increased from 32% to 52%. We believe that claimant legal costs are disproportionate to the value of the damages paid, sometimes representing up to 299% for lower value claims, and disproportionate to the defendant costs. Ultimately this all comes out money for front line services. The proposal for fixed recoverable cost in lower value clinical negligence claims was suggested by Lord Justice Jackson in his report Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales.

    The Department is working closely with partners and interested parties to develop a proposal to introduce fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims. The Department’s proposal in the consultation is a maximum threshold level of £250,000, based on Lord Justice Jackson’s original proposal and with a view to covering at least 80% of all claims. We welcome views on the proposal from all sectors. The results of a pre-consultation exercise with a number of key stakeholders, including representatives of claimant lawyers, and the consultation documentation, including the Impact Assessment, will be published early 2016 subject to relevant Committee clearances.

    The level of potential savings will ultimately depend upon the final maximum threshold level proposed. By making legal costs proportionate to the damages paid we would hope to save circa £80 million per annum. The Department is also working with various clinical groups looking at how the current level of incidents can be reduced. In terms of maternity our target to reduce avoidable harm by 50% and save 6,000 lives.

    The Department sees the fixed recoverable cost work as part of an overall strategic approach aimed at improving patient safety, improving customer care and improving litigation. Improving patient safety and reducing the incidents of harm is a key element of this.

  • John Mann – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    John Mann – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Mann on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he has had with Network Rail and Suffolk County Council on increasing the number of services stopping at Newmarket railway station.

    Claire Perry

    The Secretary of State has held no discussions with Network Rail and Suffolk County Council on increasing the number of services stopping at Newmarket station.

    The issues of future passenger and freight demand, route capacity and service levels have been considered in Network Rail’s Anglia Route Study; and will be considered by the Department in future planning cycles.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the nuclear agreement with Iran, they plan to make representations to the government of Israel to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agree to the same level of inspection now accepted by Iran.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. All state parties should be pushing for universality of the treaty. In that regard, the Government continues to call on all states that are not parties to the NPT, including Israel, to accede to it, and we also continue to call on Israel to agree a full scope Comprehensive Safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.