Category: Speeches

  • Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2016-03-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in end-to-end personal independence payment processing time from 11 to 13 weeks.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Following a controlled start from July 2015, full Personal Independence Payment (PIP) roll-out commenced in October 2015, with an increase in the numbers of existing Disability Living Allowance claimants being asked to claim PIP.

    In addition and in order to improve the customer journey, the Department has made some changes to the way in which it monitors Assessment Provider performance. These changes mean that Providers now have more time in which to complete assessments and return reports to the Department and also gives them greater flexibility to obtain further evidence to support claims: this therefore allows more time for scheduling appointments that better suit claimants and Assessment Providers, increases accuracy in assessments and reports and ensures opportunities for paper based reviews are maximised thereby reducing the demand for face-to-face appointments. Although these changes may see slightly longer average clearance times, they remain within expected levels.

  • Jack Dromey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jack Dromey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jack Dromey on 2016-04-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20367 and of 18 January 2016 to Question 22101, what the spend for the Cyber Streetwise campaign was on (a) media spend and production, (b) PR, partnership and social, (c) research and (d) website in (i) 2014-15 and (ii) 2015-16.

    Mr John Hayes

    Cyber Streetwise is a cross Government campaign, developed by private and public stakeholder partners and coordinated by the Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit. It is designed to make the UK a safer place to interact and do business online by increasing individual and SME adoption of safe online behaviours.

    Government experts estimate that a significant proportion of cyber security threats could be avoided by safer online behaviours. Cyber Streetwise supports this by increasing digital confidence, informing people about key steps that keep them safer online. It does this by:

    • Delivering actionable and positive solution focussed advice on how to be secure

    • Creating arresting communications that highlight the consequences and cut through low interest

    • Reminding and reinforcing individuals and SMEs of the core protective behaviours at the point of risk/incidence

    The impact of Cyber Streetwise on behaviours is evaluated via regular quantitative tracking research. Since its launch in January 2014, it is estimated that 2 million adults have adopted safer online behaviours that will better protect them.

    The spend for Cyber Streetwise in 2014/15 and 2015/16 is as follows:

    • 2014/15 – £3.95 million excl VAT

    • 2015/16 – £4.1 million excl VAT

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance his Department has published on surrogacy for professionals working in midwifery, hospitals, fertility clinics and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.

    Jane Ellison

    Surrogacy is a complex issue, the legislation about which has not been significantly addressed by respective administrations since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act was introduced in 1985. The Government recognises the arguments for the need for a review, and we have therefore asked the Law Commission, as part of the consultation on its 13th work programme this summer, to consider including a project on surrogacy.

    The Department has not issued guidance about surrogacy to professional groups or the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). The Government recognises surrogacy as an important option for some people wishing to start a family and is currently considering how best to clarify the current legal arrangements for intended parents, surrogates and their families. The CAFCASS campaign to increase awareness of Parental Orders is ongoing and targeted at health workers, local authority registration staff and surrogacy agencies. It will be evaluated in full upon completion in autumn 2016; in-campaign monitoring indicates its messaging is reaching the target audience.

  • – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 14 July (HL1012) in which they stated that the IMF noted Zimbabwe’s good progress and encouraged further reforms”

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Following its May 2016 Article IV Consultation with Zimbabwe, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) noted that “despite the adverse environment, the authorities have reduced the fiscal deficit in both 2014 and 2015. They have started to rationalise public expenditures by implementing recommendations from the 2015 civil service audit. They are also amending the Public Financial Management and Procurement Acts. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has taken measures to restore confidence in the financial sector. All banks in operations now have capital buffers above the minimum requirements”. The IMF assessment did not cover political reform.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what discussions he has had with the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on its investigation into alleged UK violations of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Rules of Procedure of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provide that all documents and proceedings of the Committee relating to the conduct of an inquiry under the Optional Protocol are confidential.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he plans to revise the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) memorandum of understanding to permit the Government to request changes to OBR publications over and above factual comments on the presentation of analysis and forecasts; and if he will make a statement.

    Harriett Baldwin

    There are currently no plans to revise the memorandum of understanding (MoU) to permit the Government to request changes over and above factual comments on the presentation of analysis and forecasts. Were there to be any changes to the MoU these must be approved by all its signatories – HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and the OBR.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of spousal visa postal applications were determined within eight weeks in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012, (d) 2013 and (e) 2014.

    James Brokenshire

    The proportion of postal spousal visa applications that received a grant or refusal outcome and were determined within eight weeks during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were (data from 2009 has been included for context):

    • In 2009, of 19436 applications, 11% were determined within eight weeks

    • In 2010, of 17455 applications, 51% were determined within eight weeks

    • In 2011, of 11570 applications, 73% were determined within eight weeks

    • In 2012, of 9580 applications, 12% were determined within eight weeks

    • In 2013, of 20440 applications, 31% were determined within eight weeks

    • In 2014, of 13020 applications, 65% were determined within eight weeks

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will maintain patient access to technologies considered through commissioning through evaluation programmes during that evaluation.

    George Freeman

    There are two main phases for any treatments entered into NHS England’s Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) programme.

    During the first phase, an agreed number of patients are recruited to the scheme within just a few participating centres across England. This enables patients to benefit from the skills and expertise in each centre, within an evaluation programme, whilst detailed clinical and patient experience data are collected.

    Once the total number of patients have been treated, the scheme enters an analysis phase. Whilst any patients already treated under the scheme will continue to receive appropriate follow up care, no new patients will be funded by NHS England during the analysis phase.

    This ensures that NHS England directs the majority of public funds to evidence based care and also means that dedicated CtE programme funding can then be redirected to support patient recruitment in another area of specialised care where further evaluation data is needed.

    This represents a continuation of NHS England’s published policy position for the treatment concerned (i.e. that the treatment is not routinely commissioned by the National Health Service).

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-01-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to BT regarding the case for selling Openreach.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    This is a matter for the independent telecoms regulator, Ofcom, who is currently reviewing the markets for digital communications in the UK and is due to report at the end of this month. Government has made no representations.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether his Department has conducted an impact assessment on the closure of the Business Growth Service.

    Anna Soubry

    As a Spending Review decision, closure of the Business Growth Service (BGS) was not subject to a formal impact assessment. We do not expect closure of the BGS to have an impact on small businesses and entrepreneurs.