Category: Speeches

  • Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawson on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered the merits of exempting social enterprises from paying corporation tax.

    Lord Young of Cookham

    Many social enterprises are charities, which are exempt from Corporation Tax on most income and gains if they are used for charitable purposes.

    The Government has also taken steps to support social enterprises by introducing the Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR). SITR provides tax relief to individuals when they invest in qualifying social enterprises.

    The Government has no plans to exempt all social enterprises from paying Corporation Tax, but keeps all tax policy under review.

  • Lord Freyberg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Freyberg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Freyberg on 2016-03-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish a response to their consultation on accredited safe havens, Protecting personal health and care data: a consultation on proposals to introduce new regulations, which closed on 8 August 2014.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Department received 278 responses to the 2014 consultation Protecting personal health and care data, but was unable to publish the Coalition Government’s response to that consultation before the 2015 election.

    The consultation set the clear ambition to move as quickly as possible to a future state where:

    – the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) is the place for holding identifiable health and care information at the national level;

    – access to data is more automated so that routine functions, including many commissioning functions, do not require access to identifiable data; and

    – consent is used more widely as the means for sharing identifiable information.

    Analysis of consultation responses demonstrated no obvious consensus about the function, purpose, number and controls required for Accredited Safe Havens (ASHs) to operate. Since the 2014 consultation, HSCIC, working with NHS England, local government, Public Health England and other key stakeholders has committed to the delivery of the future state within two years, without the need for interim ASHs. Delivery of these functions by HSCIC has the added benefits of:

    – increasing the likelihood of the public that there are robust protections and safeguards in place for their health and care data and information and;

    – reducing the need for the health and care system to use identifiable data as a basis for delivering their functions.

    The Government has concluded that the focus should be on supporting the HSCIC and NHS England in taking forward the future state as soon as possible. This will address the need to support integration and, in the longer term, to ensure flexibility is built in to reflect future priorities and also developments in technology and data.

    In September 2015, The Secretary of State for Health commissioned the Care Quality Commission to undertake a review of data security in the National Health Service, and in parallel commissioned Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian, to undertake an independent review of data security and consent, to:

    – Develop new data security standards;

    – Devise a method of testing compliance with the new standards, and;

    – Propose a new consent/opt-out model for data sharing.

    The National Data Guardian’s independent review will report shortly and the government will consult on the recommendations and respond to them in due course.


  • Liz McInnes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Liz McInnes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Liz McInnes on 2016-04-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to help reduce the number of hospitals which do not have a multi-disciplinary diabetes foot care team as advised in NICE guidance.

    Jane Ellison

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published clinical guidance and quality standards on the treatment of diabetes and its complications. The NICE Diabetes Quality Standard is clear that people with diabetes who are at risk of foot ulceration should receive regular reviews by a foot protection team in accordance with its clinical guidance. The Health and Social Care Act (2012) places a duty on NHS England to have regard to the NICE Quality Standards. Clinical commissioning groups should also have regard to them in planning and delivering services, as part of a general duty to secure a continuous improvement in quality.

    Our mandate to NHS England for next year includes an objective for NHS England “to lead a step change in the NHS in preventing ill health and supporting people to live healthier lives”.

    There has been an increase in the provision of access to a Multidisciplinary Diabetes Foot care Teams and an indicator measuring performance is included within the National Diabetes Audit to enable progress to be tracked. The focus to date has been on improving access to assessment and treatment by a specialist team. In terms of the proportion of hospitals with a Multidisciplinary Diabetes Foot Care Team, this was 60% in 2011, 72% in 2013, and the figure for 2015 will be published soon as part of the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit 2015 report.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what mechanism exists to ensure that research proposals which have been judged to cross the boundary between the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the UK Space Agency proceed to peer review.

    Joseph Johnson

    Staff in the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the other research councils and the UK Space Agency (UKSA) discuss research proposals on a case-by-case basis where there is cross-disciplinarity between organisational boundaries. The EPSRC operates a remit query service to assist applicants in establishing the best council for their submission. Where a proposal is received by EPSRC without using this remit service, EPSRC identify and discuss the proposal with the most relevant organisation to ensure that, where applicable, co-funding can be secured and that appropriate reviewers can be requested to cover the breadth of research disciplines covered in the proposal. Following supportive peer review the proposal would then, in the case of EPSRC, be tabled at an appropriate funding panel for authorisation or rejection in open competition with other proposals.

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the financial cost to local authorities of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for people who are placed in care homes or hospitals for their care or treatment.

    David Mowat

    The Department published an impact assessment on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in 2008; it has made no further estimate. The Law Commission’s review of the safeguards, which has been commissioned by the Department, is expected to be published at the end of the year.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, pursuant to the Answer of 29 September 2016 to Question 44820, whether any subsequent action is taken by HM Revenue and Customs against employers named and shamed for non-compliance with the national minimum wage and national living wage to check that they have changed their business practice and are continuing to pay their workforce legally.

    Margot James

    HM Revenue and Customs does not have a formal process for revisiting previously non-compliant employers.

    However, HMRC responds to 100% of worker complaints, including into employers where arrears have previously been found. As well as responding to complaints, HMRC also maintains a risk-led targeted enforcement programme which involves proactively investigating employers in high-risk sectors.

    HMRC will always take action where they believe an employer is not paying the National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage to ensure that every worker receives what they are legally entitled to.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    Chi Onwurah – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, how many incidents of (a) hacking, (b) viruses and (c) data breaches were reported to the Parliamentary Digital Service in the last 12 months.

    Tom Brake

    We do not comment on matters of digital or physical security. I understand the Director of the Digital Service has discussed the matter with the hon. Member.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to make business expenditure on resource and energy efficiency measures tax deductible.

    Damian Hinds

    The government already provides support for businesses who want to invest to become more energy efficient. The annual investment allowance (AIA) lets businesses deduct up to a total of £200,000 of their investment in plant and machinery from annual profits before tax.

    In addition, enhanced capital allowances (ECAs) let businesses that invest in certain energy-saving equipment write off the total cost of the equipment against their taxable profit as a 100% first-year capital allowance.

    A review into the business energy efficiency tax landscape concluded in November. The government is considering all responses submitted to this consultation and is likely to publish its formal response at Budget 2016.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will consult public sector organisations which would be affected by the proposed exit payment cap on the technical considerations of that cap.

    Greg Hands

    The Government maintains that £95,000 is a significant amount of money for anyone to be receiving for an exit, while the large majority of exit payments are already significantly below the level of the cap. Voluntary redundancy and workforce restructuring is not contingent upon access to six-figure exit payments. As such, we do not expect the cap to have a widespread impact on the take-up of voluntary redundancy, and believe the cap will enable public sector employers to retain the tools to effectively make organisational changes to their workforce whilst offering those made redundant generous provisions for loss of employment.

    The consultation on the public sector exit payment cap ran from 31 July to 27 August 2015, and received over 4000 responses. These responses included representations from public sector organisations. The Government will publish draft regulations and invite comment on them in due course.

  • Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the effect on survival rates in kidney patients and on the Domain 1 outcomes of the NHS Outcomes Framework of transplants unsuccessful because of the lack of availability of immunosuppression treatments that the patient can tolerate, following the recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (review of TA 85) [ID456] to restrict access to such agents.

    George Freeman

    We have made no such assessment.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has not yet published its final updated guidance on the use of immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplant in adults (review of TA85) or on the use of immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplant in children and young people (review of TA99). NICE is developing resource impact reports to support implementation of its guidance which will be published alongside its final technology appraisal guidance.