Category: Speeches

  • Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what representations his Department has received on the potential effect on universities and university research of the proposed ban on public funds being used to lobby Government.

    Matthew Hancock

    As I made clear in the House on 27 April, we are continuing to consider the comments of all interested parties, ahead of the introduction into grant agreements of the clause aimed at protecting taxpayers’ money from being wasted on government lobbying government. We are pausing the implementation, pending a review of the representations made, and to give further time to consider any necessary adjustments to the wording of the clause, or the policy on its implementation, to help to deliver this policy in the best possible way for all involved.

  • Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how his Department is monitoring the effectiveness of the Community Engagement Forum; how frequently that forum has met; and how many Muslims that forum has engaged.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Community Engagement Forum has met on three separate occasions and has engaged a wide range of people representing, among others, different Muslim communities. Further details on attendance were provided on 2 November 2015 in response to written Question 13090 and on 12 January 2016 to written Question 20784. The discussions at the Community Engagement Forum have informed policy development across several individual Departments, the effectiveness of which will be monitored in the usual way.

  • Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-07-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the NHS requires organisations bidding for out of area contracts to have been inspected and rated by the Care Quality Commission before bidding.

    David Mowat

    Non-primary care services must be commissioned by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) or NHS England using the NHS Standard Contract. The NHS Standard Contract requires any provider to comply with the registration requirements of Care Quality Commission (CQC) where applicable. When this is the case the production of evidence of registration with the CQC will be a precondition of the commencement of service delivery.

    We would expect commissioners to require evidence of registration (if legally required) with the CQC as part of the tendering process for a new contract. In the case of delivery of services from a new premises or a newly-established provider, registration may not be in place at time the provider submits its bid, but should be before services commence.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether it is the Government’s policy to negotiate to continue participation in the European Aviation Safety Authority after the UK leaves the EU.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government is considering carefully all the potential implications arising from the UK’s exit from the EU, including the implications for the continued participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency System. Until we leave, EU law still applies, so EU rules in this area will continue to apply in the UK, alongside national rules.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s consultation document on Tackling Exploitation in the Labour Market, published in October 2015, what plans she has to use data gathered by labour market enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement activities.

    Karen Bradley

    The labour market enforcement bodies already work closely with Home Office immigration enforcement and share information. Where they identify suspected immigration offences during the course of their own investigations information is passed on and Immigration Enforcement may use information to conduct enforcement operations against businesses employing illegal migrants. This sharing of information will continue to be the case in the future.

  • Lord Campbell-Savours – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Campbell-Savours – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell-Savours on 2015-11-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to announce the detail of their proposals for £12 billion in savings on the welfare budget; and what benefits are under consideration for further reduction.

    Lord Freud

    The Government’s commitment to save £12bn from welfare spending was set out at the Summer Budget and the recent Autumn Statement. Details of these measures can be found at pages 72-73 of the Summer Budget Report (July 2015) and page 113 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015. These are published on gov.uk.

    Any future changes to benefits following the Spending Review announcement will follow the usual policy development process and be announced at a future fiscal event.

  • Lord Greaves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Greaves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-12-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, a Parliamentary pass should be accepted as photo-identity evidence for the purposes of opening a bank account, becoming a signatory to a bank account, and similar actions; and if not why not.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government’s Anti-Money Laundering regime has a clear aim: to make the UK financial system a hostile environment for illicit finances, whilst minimising the burden on legitimate businesses and reducing the overall burden of regulation.

    Under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, customers opening a bank account must satisfy the relevant financial institution as to their identity. Financial institutions are also required to maintain appropriate records and conduct ongoing monitoring of the business relationship. The Regulations do not prescribe that customers must produce particular documents such as a driving licence or passport, or indeed a Parliamentary pass.

    Professional bodies such as the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG, a finance, trade and banking industry consortium), issue detailed operational guidance to their members about how the Regulations should be applied in practice, which is available on their website. The JMLSG guidance encourages businesses to consider a wide range of reliable documentation that customers can produce for customer due diligence purposes. Each business will however have their own policies in relation to customer due diligence checks. The Regulations require businesses to be proportionate in the checks they carry out, so that they safeguard against the potential risks but the process is not unnecessarily burdensome for the customer.

  • Ruth Smeeth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Ruth Smeeth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Smeeth on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what funding was available for the Pupil Premium Summer School Programme in 2015.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    The Department made up to £46m of funding from the pupil premium available to support schools in delivering summer schools in 2015. The actual amount paid to the 2,171 secondary schools that chose to take part in the 2015 programme, which involved over 92,000 pupils, was £38m.

  • David Winnick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Winnick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Winnick on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when his Department last consulted medical authorities on the potential merits of making the meningitis B vaccine available on the NHS for all children; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    National immunisation programmes are introduced on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the independent expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters. JCVI’s recommendations are based on a comprehensive and careful review of a wide range of evidence including information from medical experts.

    JCVI reviewed the available evidence on meningitis B vaccine and recommended a national Meningococcal B (MenB) immunisation programme for infants. The MenB vaccine is first offered to babies at 2 months of age, with further doses offered when they reach 4 and 12 months of age.

    MenB was introduced into the NHS programme in September 2015. JCVI keeps the eligibility criteria of all vaccination programmes under review and considers new evidence as it becomes available. If JCVI provides further advice about the programme, we will consider this.

  • Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steven Paterson on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on how many occasions his Department has not provided substantive answers to written parliamentary questions by stating that disclosure of the information would likely prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies in this parliamentary session.

    Penny Mordaunt

    Since the start of the 2015-16 session of Parliament to 17 March 2016, 47 written parliamentary questions (PQs) tabled to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) were not answered because disclosure would have been likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies. This figure represents 2% of the total number of 2,318 PQs answered by the MOD during that period.

    In 19 further PQs, only part of the answer was withheld so as to protect the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies.