Category: Speeches

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

    Lord Shinkwin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Shinkwin on 2016-03-16.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the increase, if any, in abortions for disability of implementing new non-invasive prenatal testing techniques.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) commissioned a full review of the published scientific and cost evidence (systematic review) relating to Non Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). Based on the evidence from the systematic review and the pilot study, the UK NSC ran a three month consultation that closed on 30 October 2015 seeking views on whether NIPT be offered as an additional test to women identified with a higher risk of carrying a baby with a chromosomal condition.

    The consultation was sent directly to 38 organisations and responses were received from 30 stakeholders. Details of the evidence recommendation can be found in the document titled, ‘cfDNA Systematic Review Final Report.’ Details of the organisations contacted can be found in Annex A of the document titled, ‘cfDNA Cover Sheet’ and consultation responses can be found in the document titled, ‘Screening for cfDNA Compiled Comments.’ All three documents were published on the UK NSC website and copies are attached.

    The UK NSC review included the early findings from the Reliable Accurate Prenatal non-Invasive Diagnosis study. However, the possible introduction of NIPT for Down’s, Patau’s and Edwards’ syndromes to the National Health Service foetal anomaly screening programme does not fundamentally alter the choices presented to prospective parents regarding entering the foetal anomaly screening programme or not, or in options and choices available when testing identifies a foetus with a syndrome. Therefore, no assessment was made of the impact of NIPT on the number of abortions, Down’s Syndrome community and medical professional and society’s attitudes towards people with Down’s syndrome.

    As NIPT for Down’s, Patau’s and Edward’s syndromes is giving more accurate information than women already get, the UK NSC does not consider it to raise any new ethical issues. However, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held a workshop in January 2016 to consider the ethical aspects of introducing NIPT.

  • Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2016-04-20.

    To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, which women’s organisations the Minister for Women has met since May 2015.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities and I have met with many representatives from women’s organisations since taking on our roles as Ministers for Women and Equalities. This includes attending and speaking at conferences and events, including a women and equalities stakeholder event held in July 2015, and our pre-CSW NGO event organised by the Government Equalities Office in November 2015, which was attended by representatives of approximately 40 women’s organisations.

    Meetings are a matter of public record, and can be found at www.gov.uk/government/collections/dfe-ministers-quarterly-returns and www.gov.uk/government/collections/moj-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings. Some of the meetings we have held with women’s organisations include:

    • Women’s Aid

    • Agenda

    • 30% Club

    • Rights of Women

    • Birth Companions

    • Women’s Business Council

    • Brighton Women’s Centre

    • One Small Thing

    • Women’s Breakout

    “

  • Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Andrew Murrison – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Murrison on 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what criteria are used for decisions on the (a) removal and (b) denial of UK honours.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Forfeiture Committee which makes recommendations on the removal of honours can consider any case where there is evidence to suggest that the retention of an honour would bring the honours system into disrepute, for example, if an individual has been found guilty by the Courts of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment; or has been censured/struck off by the relevant Regulatory Authority or Professional Body for actions or failures to act which are directly relevant to the granting of the Honour.

    Honours nominations are considered by one of the nine independent honours selection committees. There are many reasons why a nomination may not be successful when judged on merit against other nominations.

  • Stephen McPartland – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Stephen McPartland – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment has he made of the effect of high car parking charges on the viability of town centre economies; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrew Percy

    The department does not centrally collect data on high parking charges. Local authorities are responsible for setting local parking charges taking account of local circumstances.

    We want local authorities to adopt policies that support local town centres, and have recently consulted on "Strengthening Local Government Transparency". The consultation included a proposal to increase the amount of information local authorities would need to publish on parking thereby helping local communities to better understand what revenues were being raised from parking.

    The intention of this proposed change would be to encourage a better local dialogue between communities and the local authorities that represent them about what appropriate parking charge levels should be.

    We are currently analysing responses to the consultation and will publish our response in due course.

  • Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine West on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whether the Government has set its negotiating position for exiting the EU as being that it will not seek to remain in the single market.

    Mr Robin Walker

    We are considering carefully all options for future arrangements with the EU following a UK exit. We know that there is no mandate for a deal that involves accepting the existing arrangements governing free movement of people from Europe. However, we do not accept that there is a binary trade-off in terms of border control and access to the single market for goods and services. We are aiming for the best deal on both for Britain. The Prime Minister has been clear that we are going to be ambitious in our negotiation, to negotiate the best deal for the British people and that will include the maximum possible access to the European market for firms to trade with and operate within.

  • Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what proportion of senior civil servants in his Department are from a lower socio-economic background.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    This information is not held.

  • Karen Buck – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Karen Buck – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2015-11-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether, where there is a Direct Pay arrangement for child maintenance between parents but the liabilities required by the Child Maintenance Service have not been fully paid, that Service seeks to collect unpaid amounts retrospectively.

    Priti Patel

    The Child Maintenance Service has a wide range of effective powers to facilitate the collection of child maintenance.

    Where a direct pay arrangement is in place between parents and the Child Maintenance Service is informed and satisfied that payments have been missed, action will be taken to collect these amounts retrospectively at the request of the receiving parent.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects Deutsche Bahn to commence operating international services from London St Pancras; and if he will make a statement.

    Claire Perry

    I recognise the international importance of the HS1 network in allowing high-speed rail services from London to reach Europe, whilst noting that no international services currently serve Stratford International station. Eurostar, in which the government recently sold its 40% stake, accesses the HS1 network on an open access basis and is not subject to the terms of a franchise agreement or a contract let by government. Government has no power to direct or specify that Eurostar stops at Stratford International station. A decision made by Eurostar not to serve Stratford International would be as a result of commercial imperatives and priorities, for example, the potential revenue derived from customers using the station or the increased journey time which a further stop would involve. It would not be appropriate for government to interfere with that decision-making process. I have not received any recent representations on this matter from potential or actual train operators; who in any event, should address their questions to HS1 Ltd, as the infrastructure manager, in the first instance; nor have I held any discussions with Eurostar on the matter of services to Stratford.

    Regarding any aspirations of Deutsche Bahn to commence operation of international services from St Pancras International, this is rightly a matter for HS1 Ltd as the infrastructure manager, who I understand have held discussions with a number of potential new entrants, including Deutsche Bahn. It would not be appropriate to comment on any ongoing commercial discussions between those parties.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many consultants from Bain & Company were working on his Department’s Commercial Capability Review; for how long those consultants were so engaged; and what remit those consultants have been given.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Cabinet Office used 4 FTE over a nine month period in 2014 and 2015, to cover 10 Commercial Capability Reviews. Bain & Company supported the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury with providing assurance that departments were on track with clear plans to ensure they have the right commercial capability, both in the short-term and for their future functions.

    The findings of the review, along with updates on progress since the Reviews were conducted, can be found within the Cabinet Office’s December 2015 submission to the Public Accounts Committee: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/followup-on-transforming-contract-management/written/27765.pdf

    “

  • Susan Elan Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Susan Elan Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Susan Elan Jones on 2016-02-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps the Government is taking to support self-employed people who want to buy their own home.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government is committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. At the Spending Review the Government announced a series of measures which will help people become homeowners. These include plans to deliver 200,000 Starter Homes and 135,000 Shared Ownership homes; increasing the value of Help to Buy equity loans in London to 40% from 25% and extending the Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme for a further year to 2021.

    These schemes are also supported by the Help to Buy: ISA, through which the Government tops up mortgage deposit savings for first time buyers by up to £3,000.

    Decisions around the availability of individual mortgage loans are commercial decisions for lenders, including what evidence is required to validate income. The Government does not seek to intervene in these decisions.