Category: Speeches

  • Lord Greaves – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Greaves – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-12-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 24 November (HL Deb, col 566), what specific additional support they are providing to those towns and parishes wishing to exercise the community rights provided by the Localism Act 2011 for developing neighbourhood plans, listing assets of community value and running services using the right to challenge; what other such community rights are available to town and parish councils; and what financial contribution they have made to town and parish councils for each of these purposes in each year since those rights came into existence.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The financial support for use of the community rights made by the Department for Communities and Local Government since the community rights came into force amounts to £62.6 million, including spend for the current financial year (2015/16). Spending on the Community Rights programme includes funding for communities to work with public service providers to take on services, Our Place and other related projects.

    Community Rights Funding (£million)

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15

    2015-16

    TOTAL

    1

    10.8

    19.5

    17.4

    13.9

    62.6

    The Government is currently considering options for funding this activity after the financial year 2015-16.

  • Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are legal implications for a business that advertises on the internet to write a student’s essay or dissertation, which the student then pays for and submits as their own work for academic accreditation.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The Government strongly condemns any form of cheating. All publicly funded providers of higher education courses are expected to comply with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, published by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). One of the requirements of the Code is to ensure that students do not obtain awards through any form of unacceptable academic practice relating to assessment, including plagiarism.

    There is no centrally held set of data on the number of recorded plagiarism cases in UK Higher Education – responsibility for tackling plagiarism lies with the HE providers themselves, as autonomous organisations.

    Institutions have a variety of mechanisms to address cheating by both international and EEA/UK students, including strong policies and specialist software. Between 2012 and 2015, the QAA carried out approximately 650 reviews of institutions. Of these, it only had to make recommendations to 30 individual universities and colleges on the need to improve systems and information related to plagiarism.

    The QAA are discussing the legality of essay mills with the Consumer and Markets Authority.

  • Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Jamie Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jamie Reed on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate she has made of the amount of energy that would be generated in West Cumbria as a result of the (a) Moorside Nuclear development and (b) Solway Firth Tidal Gateway project; and what proportion of UK energy would be generated by those projects.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Nugen’s proposal for Moorside is for three Toshiba Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, which together have a stated generation capacity of 3.6GW. This is equivalent to around 27 TWh per year once the station is fully operational. This is estimated to be equivalent to around 7% of the UK’s electricity generation needs in 2030.

    No assessment of the amount of generation which could be produced by a potential Solway Firth Tidal Gateway project has been made by my Department as we have not received any detailed proposal for such a project.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the total cost of treating liver disease was in (a) England and (b) each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available.

    Jane Ellison

    Information on the total cost of treating liver disease in England and in each parliamentary constituency is not available centrally.

    Such information as is available is from reference costs, which are the average unit cost to National Health Service hospital trusts of providing defined services to patients in a given financial year. Reference costs for acute care are collected by Healthcare Resource Group (HRG), which are standard groupings of similar treatments that use similar resources. HRGs are organised by chapters and sub-chapters, representing different body systems, and HRG sub-chapter GC describes hepatobiliary and pancreatic system disorders. The total costs in the following table, calculated from the national average unit costs and activity submitted in reference costs, will therefore include the costs to NHS hospitals of treating liver and liver related diseases, but also the costs of other related disorders.

    Estimated total costs (£ millions) to NHS hospitals of treating hepatobiliary and pancreatic system disorders, 2014-15

    Liver failure disorders

    £17.7 million

    Malignant, hepatobiliary or pancreatic disorders

    £54.3 million

    Non-malignant, hepatobiliary or pancreatic disorders

    £328.1 million

    Total costs

    £400.0 million

    Source: reference costs, Department of Health

    Notes:

    1. The following HRGs are included in the table:

    Liver Failure Disorders with Multiple Interventions

    Liver Failure Disorders with Single Intervention

    Liver Failure Disorders without Interventions, with CC (Complication and Comorbidity) Score 5+

    Liver Failure Disorders without Interventions, with CC Score 0-4

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 5+

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 2-4

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-1

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 6+

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 3-5

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 1-2

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 0

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 9+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 4-8

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 0-3

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 9+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 4-8

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-3

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 8+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 5-7

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 2-4

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 0-1

    1. These HRGs are common groupings of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) codes used to count the number of finished admission episodes with a primary or secondary diagnosis of liver disease or liver related disease. They also include other ICD-10 codes.

  • Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Vaz on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many times Spirit Healthcare has been commissioned to deliver type 2 diabetes education to date.

    Jane Ellison

    The information requested is not held centrally.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) statistics release, Measuring tax gaps 2015 edition: methodological annex, published on 22 October 2015, what proportion of large businesses listed on HMRC’s database have (a) at least once and (b) on seven occasions challenged HMRC’s initial estimate of their tax liability in the period from 2009-10 to 2015-16.

    Greg Hands

    Tax under consideration is HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) estimate of the maximum potential additional tax liability in each case, before they have carried out a full investigation of the specific facts or analysis of relevant law. It is not actual tax either owed or unpaid; it is a tool to guide HMRC enquiries to focus on the most significant risks that exist at any particular time with the largest businesses. In many cases, when HMRC have looked at the full facts it becomes clear that there is some lesser additional liability or even no additional liability at all. Tax under consideration is a snapshot of work in progress and will naturally vary from time to time as outstanding issues are settled and new risks are identified. Tax under consideration covers all taxes, including Corporation Tax, VAT, PAYE and National lnsurance contributions. As it is an internal estimate used within HMRC, it is not subject to challenge by large businesses.

    Until 31 March 2014, HMRC’s Large Business Service dealt with the tax affairs of around 800 of the largest businesses in the UK. From 1 April 2014 HMRC’s Large Business directorate deals with the tax affairs of around 2,000 large businesses.

    Snapshots of tax under consideration in each year were:

    HMRC’s Large Business directorate (largest 2,000 businesses):

    31 March 2015 – £19 billion

    HMRC’s Large Business Service (largest 800 businesses):

    31 March 2014 – £15.7 billion

    31 July 2013 – £18.8 billion

    31 July 2012 – £21.3 billion

    31 March 2011 – £25.5 billion

    31 March 2010 – £33.4 billion

    The estimate of total tax under consideration shown in Measuring Tax Gaps Table 7.1, page 62, differs from the figures above for two reasons:

    • it shows tax under consideration for the individual financial years relating to liability

    • it includes corporation tax only.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the number of hospital shifts that have not been filled as a result of the introduction of caps to the number of NHS agency staff since (a) November 2015, (b) February 2016 and (c) April 2016.

    Alistair Burt

    The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what his policy is on future UK involvement in the European Arrest Warrant.

    Mr Robin Walker

    We are leaving the EU but co-operation on security with our European and global allies will be maintained. We will do what is necessary to keep our people safe – our aim will be to continue cooperation where it is in the national interest to protect the public. We are about to begin these negotiations and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance.

  • 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 2016-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people were treated for body dysmorphic disorder in (a) Liverpool Wavertree constituency, (b) Liverpool, (c) England and (d) each region in each year since 2010.

    Nicola Blackwood

    This information is not available in the format requested.

  • Peter Dowd – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Dowd – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Dowd on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when post-16 education will be reviewed in Merseyside under the area review process; and if he will make a statement.

    Nick Boles

    The reviews are aimed at delivering a skills system that meets the economic and educational needs of areas whilst also ensuring the long term sustainability of colleges to support productivity. Their purpose is not to secure savings to Government. However, early evidence from the pilot reviews indicates that there is potential for the reviews to secure efficiency savings.

    The second wave of area reviews will start in January 2016 and we aim to announce details within the next few weeks. We are currently looking at the geographies and phasing for other areas and will aim to issue further information on this before the end of the year but in doing this we recognise that the position should remain fluid to take account of the views of local partners and also cases of college failure. We expect all reviews to be completed by March 2017.