Category: Speeches

  • Alex Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Alex Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what level of lead consumption his Department has defined as safe; and what evidence his Department has received on the mean level of lead in (a) game meat and (b) game meat shot with lead ammunition.

    Jane Ellison

    Government set up the independent Lead Ammunition Group in 2010 to provide advice on risks to wildlife and human health from lead shot game. The Government is considering the independent Lead Ammunition Group’s report on the effect of lead shot on human and wildlife health and will respond as soon as possible The Food Standards Agency (FSA) accepts the expert advice of the UK Committee on Toxicity and the European Food Safety Authority that it is not possible to set a safe level for exposure to lead from food. However, to better understand the potential risk to UK consumers the FSA produced a risk assessment in 2012 based on its survey data from 2007 of game meat samples; Veterinary Medicines Directorate data from the national surveillance scheme was also considered. The FSA risk assessment considered the potential levels of exposure to lead from lead shot game for adults, children and toddlers based on different levels of game meat consumption.

    This risk assessment led to FSA issuing targeted advice to frequent consumers of lead shot game in 2012, warning of the potential risks. The advice was promoted as especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant women and women trying for a baby, as exposure to lead can harm the developing brain and nervous system. The FSA risk assessment was published along with this advice. The Government has not estimated the number of people who regularly consume game meat shot with lead.

    More generally, the FSA, works on behalf of the UK within the European Union to agree harmonised controls to reduce public exposure to lead in the food chain. EU maximum limits apply for lead in a range of foods and these are regularly reviewed by the EU Commission and member states. These maximum limits apply to all food produced in the EU or imported to the EU.

  • Luciana Berger – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2015-12-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for what reasons he has not yet announced funding for the Time to Change campaigns beyond March 2016.

    Alistair Burt

    We have provided £3.2 million in funding in 2015/16 to the Time to Change programme to support the excellent work the programme does in reducing the stigma associated with mental illness.

    The Time to Change programme received £16 million in funding from Government between 2011/12 and 2014/15.

    Officials are in discussions with Time to Change, and its other funding partners, about the next phase of the programme.

  • Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawson on 2016-01-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the wireless internet signal on the train network, in particular between London and Sheffield.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Availability of mobile broadband services on trains can be an issue, partly due to physical barriers to radio signals reaching the railway track, include railway cuttings and tunnels and due to signal weakening, called attenuation, caused by train carriage walls and windows.

    In June 2015, the Government launched a Call for Evidence to support delivery of improved coverage, with the intention to build on the work that has already happened across industry. On-train Wi-Fi addresses some of the issues, however we recognise that there is more to do that will require enhancements to trackside infrastructure. That’s why we are working with the rail and telecommunications industries to reach a shared understanding of the technical and commercial challenges, and seek out potential solutions for the rail network, including the London to Sheffield line.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-02-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his policy is on the proposal from the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU, in order to have one set of rules for calculating the taxable profits of companies operating in more than one member state; and if he will press for the introduction of such a CCCTB with other EU member states in the Council.

    Mr David Gauke

    The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) has a keen interest in tax, and hence put forward certain proposals. However, the Commission has the sole power of initiative in relation to legislative measures. Tax files are to be agreed by unanimity at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN). The European Parliament’s role in this process in not formal, and purely consultative.

    The term tax haven is often used as shorthand for low or zero tax jurisdictions. However, low tax rates are not by themselves harmful and the UK supports fair tax competition. The UK is working with other Member States in the EU Code of Conduct Group to identify harmful tax regimes and will continue to take strong action against aggressive avoidance and evasion.

    The UK and other Member States have not yet seen any proposals from the European Commission or the European Parliament on public country-by-country reporting (CbCR). The Commission is due to publish an Impact Assessment on public CbCR shortly, and we are interested in the results of their analysis. The UK will carefully consider any proposals put forward by the Commission.

    The UK played a leading role in encouraging other countries and jurisdictions to sign up to international tax transparency agreements during its G8 presidency in 2013. Thanks in large part to the UK’s continuing leadership on this agenda, over 90 countries have now committed to exchange information on offshore accounts, beginning in 2017 or 2018. The UK also initiated the international work on CbCR and was the first country to formally commit to implementing the OECD model for CbCR, with legislation in the Finance Act 2015. We support the proposal to amend the Directive on Administrative Co-operation to require all EU Member States to adopt and exchange the OECD CbCR template.

    The European Commission intends to publish a revised proposal for a mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) later this year. The Government will wait to see the detail of the Commission’s proposal, including a robust impact assessment, before finalising its position. However, we have stated that the UK will not sign up to anything that undermines our tax sovereignty.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-03-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 7 March 2016 to Question 29272, how many of the 2635 EEA nationals upon whom administrative travel papers were served in 2014 have left the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    After an EEA national has been served with administrative removal papers, they have 30 days to leave the country. They do not have to inform us of their departure. This period is set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

    Following this 30-day period, if the EEA national has not voluntarily left the UK Immigration Enforcement officers can and do forcibly remove these individuals. Out of the 2,635 EEA nationals who were served administrative removal papers in 2014 1,019 were forcibly removed.

  • Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Andrew Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether he plans for the proposed £1,000 immigration skills charge to apply to NHS nurses.

    Nick Boles

    The Immigration Skills Charge will be paid by UK employers recruiting skilled migrant labour from outside the European Economic Area. This includes employers of nurses. The charge will apply from April 2017. There will be a flat rate of £1,000 per Tier 2 migrant sponsored per year. Some public sector employers could benefit from the small and charitable sponsors reduced rate of £364 per Tier 2 migrant sponsored per year.

    As the independent Migration Advisory Committee stated in their January 2016 report on Tier 2, public sector organisations are employers like any other and should be incentivised to consider the UK labour market first, before recruiting outside Europe.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-05-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether it is a legal requirement that urgent mental health referrals for admission are fully funded.

    Alistair Burt

    The legal requirement lies with clinical commissioning groups to work with local partners to assess the mental health needs of the community they serve, and to ensure services are commissioned and adequately funded to meet the identified needs. This includes provision of services to respond to people in mental health crisis or who need urgent inpatient mental health care. No one in need of urgent mental health care should be turned away from services while funding responsibilities are decided.

  • David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Hanson on 2016-06-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many applications for the Legion d’Honneur had been processed by the Personnel and Training, Defence Services Secretary, Commemorations department but had not yet been processed by the French authorities by 24 June 2016.

    Mark Lancaster

    Following the answer I gave to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on 6 June 2016 to Question 38675, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received approximately 5,200 applications for the Legion d’Honneur between June 2014 and June 2016. We are unable to provide a breakdown by month. As at 24 June the MOD had submitted 3,750 cases to the French authorities. We are not automatically advised when awards are issued, but a list provided by the French authorities on 13 May 2016 showed that 3,200 awards had been made.

    It is not possible to give a meaningful figure for an average waiting time for veterans to receive their awards, as this has reduced steadily, from over a year for initial applications to the current time of around two to three months owing to changes in the processing. Some priority cases, particularly where there are health concerns, are processed much more quickly.

    The Department is working closely with the French authorities and we are doing our best to ensure that all awards are issued as soon as possible and at the maximum rate at which they can be produced.

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-09-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how she plans to ensure that the forthcoming review of fair funding for early years education will include measures to help close the attainment gap at age five.

    Caroline Dinenage

    This Government is committed to narrowing the gap in attainment between the most disadvantaged children and their peers, including in the early years. We will be investing over £1 billion more per year by 2019-20 to fund our commitments on the early years entitlements – this includes £300 million per year from 2017-18 for a significant increase to the hourly rate paid for the two, three and four year old entitlements.

    The 2014-15 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile results tell us that the proportion of children achieving a good level of development continues to increase – 66% in 2015, compared to 60% in 2014 and 52% in 2013. Furthermore, a higher proportion of children eligible for free school meals are achieving a good level of development – 51% in 2015 compared to 45% in 2014.

    We need to continue this improvement. This is why we propose an additional needs factor in our new early years national funding formula, in order to channel funding towards local authorities with a higher relative proportion of children with additional needs. Our consultation on early years funding reform is currently open, and I would encourage my Honourable Friend and his constituents to submit their views.

    The Government already provides additional funding for the most disadvantaged three- and four-year olds through the Early Years Pupil Premium. This will continue as a separate funding stream, additional to the early years national funding formula.

  • Karl Turner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Karl Turner – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl Turner on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the propriety of his Department overseeing the consultation on a fixed recoverable cost regime in clinical negligence cases when it is the defendant in most such cases.

    Ben Gummer

    The Department is working closely with stakeholders to develop the proposal to introduce fixed recoverable costs. We have undertaken a pre-consultation exercise with a number of key stakeholders, including representatives of claimant lawyers, and are planning an open public consultation shortly. We welcome views on the proposal from all sectors.

    The consultation documentation, including the Impact Assessment, will be published in early 2016 subject to relevant Committee clearances. We are working upon the assumption that there is nothing about Fixed Recoverable Costs regime which will alter the percentage of unmeritorious claims.

    Any scheme proposed will include consideration of the right incentives to support a fairer and quicker process that provides the improvements to the system whilst maintaining access to justice.

    The NHS Litigation Authority reported in their annual report for 2014/15 that it resolves over 4,000 clinical negligence cases annually for no payment of damages and in 2014/15 it saved over £1.2 billion for the National Health Service in rejecting claims which had no merit.