Category: Speeches

  • Rehman Chishti – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rehman Chishti – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rehman Chishti on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with the Chief Executive of NHS England on spending on mental health services during 2015-16.

    Alistair Burt

    In total, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have set plans for 2015/16 which reflect an increase in mental health care expenditure in excess of their increase in allocation for the year. NHS England is tracking actual expenditure against those plans and it will report to the Secretary of State at the end of the year on whether those plans have been met.

    Departmental Ministers meet the Chief Executives of NHS England and Monitor regularly and discuss a wide range of issues, including funding for mental health services.

    NHS England was formally established on 1 April 2013.Expenditure by NHS England on Specialist Mental Health Services for 2013/14 was £1.780 billion and £1.795 billion in 2014/15. NHS England’s planned expenditure on Specialist Mental Health Services for 2015/16 is £1.859 billion.

    NHS England has published CCG level expenditure on mental health for 2013/14, which was estimated to be £8.1 billion. CCGs are currently in the process of preparing estimates of expenditure for mental health services in 2014/15. Estimates for 2015/16 are not available.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Paul Blomfield – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the Government sought assurances from Royal Mail that local collection offices would not be closed after the sale of that company.

    Anna Soubry

    Decisions on whether to close and re-locate local collection offices have always been operational matters for Royal Mail. The Government played no role in such decisions prior to the sale of Royal Mail.

    Regardless of ownership, Royal Mail, as the United Kingdom’s designated universal service provider, is required to provide a universal postal service that meets the minimum requirements as set out under the Postal Services Act 2011.

    It is the responsibility of the postal regulator, Ofcom, to ensure that Royal Mail provides sufficient access points to meet its universal postal service obligations.

  • Kevan Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kevan Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what funding has been allocated to armed forces veterans’ mental health services in (a) 2015-16, (b) 2016-17, (c) 2017-18, (d) 2018-19, (e) 2019-20.

    Alistair Burt

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 December 2015 to question 19176.

    “

  • Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness King of Bow on 2016-01-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 7 January (HL4728), whether independence was one of the criteria by which candidates to chair the independent review of localisation of Council Tax support schemes were assessed.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    While independence was not referenced in my earlier answer, Ministers were mindful of independence in considering a chair, and have made it clear that this would be an independent review.

  • Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent their proposed new restrictions on lobbying by charities extend the existing restrictions imposed by charity legislation.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The announcement on 6 February was on a new clause for all government grant agreements. This new clause makes clear that grant recipients must not use the grant funding for political campaigning and lobbying unless it is expressly authorised in the grant agreement.

    Charities remain free to lobby the government, subject to charity law restrictions. They simply cannot use government grant funding to do so.

  • Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-03-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 25 February (HL Deb, col 389), when they first made representations to the EU Commission as regards allegations of dumping of Chinese steel; when action was taken by the Commission; and what assessment they have made of whether the Commission took effective and prompt action.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The European Commission currently has 37 measures in place against steel products, 16 of which concern imports from China.

    The government makes regular representations to the European Commission concerning allegations of dumping of steel. The government judges each anti-dumping investigation on its merits, based on the evidence presented by the Commission and on representations from interested parties, including producers, users and importers. We have supported industry calls for action in recent cases, for example in the reinforcing bar case we have raised the steel industry’s concerns that the provisional duties were too low with the Commission. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills spoke with Commissioner Malmström about this and received assurance that the Commission will reconsider this during the definitive stage of the investigation, if industry can provide the necessary evidence.

    Given the current crisis in the steel industry, we continue to press the Commission for faster, more effective action to deal with dumping of steel.

  • Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2016-04-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 23 November 2015 to Question 16350, whether (a) professional and vocational training and (b) other alternative forms of digital skills development will be supported by the apprenticeship levy.

    Nick Boles

    Employers will be free to spend their money on apprenticeship training which they judge best meets their needs. This could be on approved in-house apprenticeship training, or apprenticeship training offered by another registered provider of their choice.

    We want to give employers in England flexibility on how they use levy funds without introducing additional and unintended complexity into the system.

    Apprenticeships are available in a wide range of sectors and at all levels including degree level. There are new apprenticeship standards in digital industries occupations such as Network Engineer, Software Developer, and Digital & Technology Solutions Professional (degree apprenticeship).

  • Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Brown on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what support the Government provides local authorities who express an interest in resettling refugee children under the Immigration Act 2016.

    James Brokenshire

    The UK Government takes it’s responsibility in all cases involving children seriously and we will continue to ensure that all unaccompanied children are provided with appropriate care, regardless of their route to the UK.

    It is important that we work with local authorities to understand their capacity to support all unaccompanied children and ensure their needs can be met. That is why my officials are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education to ensure consultation with local authorities is consistent and coordinated across all resettlement and relocation programmes. Consultation with local government partners will take place over the coming weeks and Parliament will be updated in due course.

    We are keen to ensure that there is a more equitable distribution of unaccompanied children across the UK and that no local authority is required to take more children than they can support.

    The Home Office provides funding to local authorities for the care of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and recently announced new enhanced rates to support the transfer scheme. We will continue to measure the impacts on local authorities, but are clear that funding for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and refugees must be aligned, regardless of the route of entry for the child.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rachel Reeves – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rachel Reeves on 2016-07-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 2.15 of the Budget 2016, on funding for mesothelioma research, what consultation his Department conducted with stakeholders before the decision was taken to award that funding to four institutions centred around Imperial College.

    Greg Hands

    The award of £5 million for Mesothelioma to establish a National Centre for Mesothelioma Research was in response to an application for charitable funds in order to urgently address the anticipated imminent high mortality rate amongst Royal Navy Veterans and dockyard workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a series of Banking Fines announcements since October 2012. Throughout all of these his intention has always been that the fines would be allocated to good causes including Military and Emergency Services charities and related good causes that represent the ‘best of values’. This award was committed by the Chancellor in accordance with his intent for the use of LIBOR fines articulated above.

    The National Mesothelioma Centre, to which the funds have been committed, will be a collaboration between four leading institutions which have a major interest in the treatment of mesothelioma: the National Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI) at Imperial College, the Royal Brompton Hospital, the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), and the Royal Marsden Hospital. Scientists at NHLI and ICR have considerable expertise in the discovery of the genetic mutations which cause cancer, including mesothelioma, and in particular in the identification of ‘driver’ mutations which can be potential targets for new treatments. ICR has considerable experience of pulling through novel therapies into clinical practice. Their NHS partner hospitals – Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden Hospitals as national specialist centres have mesothelioma patients referred to them from across the UK. This collaboration will form the hub of the Centre whose spokes will engage all other hospitals in the UK to which mesotheliomas are referred and treated. This will thus form the basis of a network to enable rapid evaluation of potential new treatments. The funds therefore have been committed to establish a National Centre for Mesothelioma research, rather than to just 4 specific hospitals/research centres.

    Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor, the driving force behind the application, has, as per his original intention stated in his funding application, engaged across the Mesothelioma community, with a view to forming a steering group for the centre. Those he has contacted include: the British Lung Foundation, who have offered to fund raise with the centre for further resources for mesothelioma research; Ms Liz Darlison, of Mesothelioma UK; the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund; and the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum; Dr Robert Rintoul from Cambridge University; Prof Anne Willis and Marion Macfarlane and Dr John Le Quesne from Leicester University; and Prof Luciano Mutti from Manchester University. They have all expressed their support for the intention that these funds be used as a platform to foster collaborative research into an effective treatment for mesothelioma across the UK.

    The grant to the National Mesothelioma Centre is subject to standard grant terms and conditions including a reporting requirement to ensure that the funds are used as intended. It is not policy to publish all documentation relating to LIBOR awards, due to the large number of applications and associated correspondence.

  • Lord Smith of Hindhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Smith of Hindhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Smith of Hindhead on 2016-10-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders, and (2) Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders, have been made in the last 12 months.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    16 Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders (STPOs) have been made on sentencing in the Crown Court under section 14 of the Modern Slavery Act.

    Three Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders (STRO) have been made on application to the Magistrates’ Court, of which three have been made.

    No persons under 18 years old have been given an STPO or an STRO.

    This data has been run specifically to answer this question and is not verified to the same standard as Official Statistics.