Category: Speeches

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Catherine McKinnell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2016-04-08.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 2.77 of Budget 2016, whether eligible parents will be able to open tax-free childcare accounts prior to the launch of that scheme in early 2017.

    Damian Hinds

    The Government will publicise the Tax-Free Childcare (TFC) scheme in good time ahead of its introduction through a range of digital and print channels. HMRC will also work with the childcare industry and representative groups who interact regularly with parents to raise awareness of the scheme.

    HM Revenue and Customs is developing an online childcare calculator to help parents understand their eligibility for government childcare support. From early 2017, parents of the youngest children will be able to enter the scheme first, with all eligible parents brought in by the end of 2017. Parents will not be able to open childcare accounts prior to the launch of the scheme.

    TFC will be straightforward and quick to apply online for the vast majority of parents. We estimate that up to 9% of the families eligible for the scheme of that population may have issues with either accessing or using the internet. HM Revenue and Customs will ensure that assistance is provided, usually by telephone, so these families do not miss out on the support available.

    Tax-Free Childcare is part of the wider government childcare offer which will be worth over £6Bn per annum and together provide generous support to families on all levels of income.

  • Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Carswell on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions his Department had with (a) Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, (b) NHS Improvement and (c) the Care Quality Commission, prior to the announced merger of Colchester General Hospital and Ipswich Hospital.

    Ben Gummer

    The Care Quality Commission’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, and the Chief Executive of NHS Improvement, Jim Mackey, decided jointly upon the recommendation for a long-term partnership between Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust and The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust. A merger has not been announced.

    The Department has regular conversations with NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission about trusts in special measures such as Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust. I also spoke with the Chair and Chief Executive of Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, scheduled at their request, on 15 March 2016.

  • Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Joan Ryan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Joan Ryan on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent representations he has received from (a) Health Education England, (b) the General Medical Council and (c) the Care Quality Commission on the standard of treatment provided to patients at North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust’s emergency department; and on what dates he received those representations.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS Improvement (NHSI) is working alongside NHS England and the local health and care system to both improve patient care in the emergency department at North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and to assure Health Education England (HEE) and the General Medical Council that patients are safe and that trainee doctors receive adequate support.

    Ministers in the Department have held regular discussions and received updates from NHSI, NHS England and HEE and will continue to do so.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-09-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure that prescriptions are affordable for people with long-term medical conditions.

    David Mowat

    The Department receives numerous representations on prescription charges for people in England with long-term medical conditions. It is not possible to say how many of these were from clinical experts or health economists, though the independent Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England’s report, A new settlement for health and social care, published in 2014, did have health economist input. There have also been representations from the Prescription Charges Coalition, but it is not certain to what extent these were informed by clinical experts or health economists.

    Arrangements are in place to ensure that prescriptions are affordable for everyone, including those with a long-term condition. There are exemptions from the prescription charge for people with low income, including through receipt of specific benefits and through application to the NHS Low Income Scheme. For those who do not qualify for exemption, prescription prepayment certificates are also available, which allow people to claim as many prescriptions as they need for a set cost. To support those with high levels of need, the cost of the 12-month and 3-month certificates have been frozen since 2009 and 2011, respectively.

    The Department has not undertaken a formal impact assessment on the potential cost of eliminating or reducing prescription charges for people with long-term medical conditions. However, the Prescription Charges Review undertaken by Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, and published in 2010, estimated that extending exemption to all those with a long-term condition would lead to a loss in revenue of between £360 and £430 million.

  • Lord Marlesford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Marlesford – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2015-11-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 10 November (HL3150) about littering, when they expect to (1) start, and (2) complete, the process of seeking the views of local authorities about the size of the fine, the form and content of the penalty notice and exemptions to the keeper’s liability, and other details that need to be finalised before they implement section 54 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    As set out in our manifesto, we will review the case for increasing the fines for littering, and will begin a consultation on this later this year. The outcome of this work will inform the potential level of any civil penalty for littering from a vehicle.

    We plan to begin working with councils early next year to understand better their current enforcement practices and resources, and the barriers to effective enforcement. This will help us to consider the practicalities of implementation of any new regulatory approach (including any necessary exemptions to keepers’ liability). It will also help us to assess the new burdens on councils that would be associated with establishing a new civil penalties regime. Appropriate funding to cover any new burdens would have to be agreed before any regulations can be made.

  • Lord Balfe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Balfe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Balfe on 2015-12-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made, at EU level or otherwise, about the cases of Can Dündar and Erdem Gül who were detained by the Turkish authorities on 26 November.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We continue to monitor these specific cases and regularly underline the importance of freedom of expression and all fundamental freedoms as part of our broader dialogue with the Turkish government. Our Ambassador in Ankara highlighted his concerns about the number of journalists detained in Turkey, including Mr Dündar and Mr Gül, in his public blog released on International Human Rights day. We welcomed the EU Commission’s Annual Progress Report on Turkey, released on 10 November, which highlighted the need for further reforms from Turkey in these areas. Freedom of expression must be respected and all media outlets must be allowed to report freely without intimidation.

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the claim by Aegis Europe that granting market economy status to China could put more than one million European jobs at risk.

    Lord Maude of Horsham

    A report by the Economic Policy Institute, on which the claim by Aegis Europe draws makes some significant omissions, uses some questionable assumptions and does not take account of a number of potential positive or mitigating effects in reaching its estimates. We understand that the European Commission will be undertaking a detailed assessment of the economic impacts of granting MES as part of their consideration of this issue.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nusrat Ghani – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nusrat Ghani on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many full-time equivalent GPs were employed in general practices in Wealden constituency in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, (d) 2012-13 and (e) 2013-14.

    Alistair Burt

    The information is shown in the following table.

    Total general practitioners (GPs) in selected area, Full Time Equivalents 2009-2014:

    2009

    2010

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    East Sussex Downs and Weald Primary Care Trust (PCT)

    Total GPs

    236

    240

    243

    242

    GPs (excluding registrars)

    213

    213

    219

    220

    GPS (excluding retainers and registrars)

    208

    211

    217

    218

    GP Provider

    179

    173

    173

    173

    GP Other

    29

    38

    43

    45

    GP Registrar

    22

    27

    25

    21

    GP Retainer

    5

    2

    2

    2

    NHS High Weald Lewes Havens Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

    Total GPs

    115

    110

    GPs (excluding registrars)

    110

    110

    GPS (excluding retainers and registrars)

    109

    109

    GP Provider

    80

    78

    GP Other

    29

    31

    GP Registrar

    5

    1

    GP Retainer

    0

    0

    Source: The Health and Social Care Information Centre General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

    Notes:

    1. Data as at 30 September in each year
    2. NHS Workforce figures are not available by constituency. Wealden constituency was contained within and serviced by East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT from 2009-2012 and NHS High Weald Lewes Havens CCG from 2013 onwards. These trusts are not geographically co-terminus and thus the figures are not comparable over a time series.
  • – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by on 2016-03-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take in the light of the findings of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary’s recent PEEL: Police legitimacy 2015 report, and the comments by HM’s Inspector of Constabulary that far too many forces were not complying with the Home Office and College of Policing Best Use of Stop and Search scheme

    Lord Bates

    HM Inspector of Constabulary’s (HMIC’s) findings on stop and search powers, particularly compliance with the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme, as published in their National Legitimacy Report, are concerning. The voluntary Scheme was launched fully in December 2014 and all 43 forces, as well as the British Transport Police, signed up to it to demonstrate that their force is using stop and search powers fairly, effectively and in a way that builds community confidence. HMIC found 13 forces non-compliant in three or more components of the Scheme, and a further 19 were found to be non-compliant with at least one. This represents an unacceptable breach of the Scheme’s terms and, accordingly, membership of the 13 forces was immediately suspended on 10 February; the remaining 19 forces not fully compliant have been put on notice.

    HMIC will inspect forces suspended from the Scheme to assess progress with compliance over the next 6 months. Forces are also required to set out details on how full compliance with the Scheme’s requirements will be achieved as part of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s duty to respond to HMIC reports, as set out in section 55 of the Police Act 1996. This information, as well as the findings from HMIC’s follow-up visits to determine the progress made, will inform the decision in the summer on whether to lift the suspension from the Scheme or remove forces altogether.

  • Steve Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Steve Reed – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Reed on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the potential effect on business rate revenue of converting all schools to academies.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Loss of business rates income to local authorities under the existing 50% business rates retention scheme will be considered under the new burdens doctrine. This assesses how much new policies will cost local authorities and how they will be funded.