Category: Speeches

  • Mark Tami – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Tami – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Tami on 2015-12-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps the Government is taking to improve international cooperation on increasing the number of people on the stem cell and bone marrow registers.

    Jane Ellison

    International cooperation is an essential element of the provision of stem cells to patients requiring a transplant. Worldwide, 50% of adult stem cell donations and 30% of cord blood donations move across national boundaries.

    The Government is committed to ensuring that the provision stem cells through the Department’s delivery partners, NHS Blood and Transplant and the Anthony Nolan, is as effective as possible and this includes adopting innovative practice to maximise the chance that donors will be able to donate.

    The ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom is reflected in adult bone marrow donors through the targeted recruitment of donors. The diverse nature of the UK stem cell resources means that they will play an important part of the global network matching donors to patients. The information supplied from the UK unified registry (Anthony Nolan and NHS Stem Cell Registry) to the global registry (Bone Marrow Donors Worldwide) directly increases the chances that patients across the globe have a chance to find a suitable donor.

  • MiDavies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    MiDavies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 8 December 2015 to Question 18753, whether the assessment of the FRANK website was based solely on preventing drug use.

    Karen Bradley

    The purpose of the Frank website survey 2013 was to assess: website users’ experiences, the information they accessed, their general satisfaction with the website and their intended behaviour after visiting the website.

  • 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 2016-02-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 21 January 2016 to Question 23515, what estimate he has made of the total cost to people who pay council tax in (a) Stevenage, (b) Hertfordshire and (c) England of the potential increase in council tax; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Council tax rates are completely up to local councils. All local authorities have the power to freeze council tax if they wish. Any council that wants to raise council tax above the referendum principle needs to go to their local area for consent.

    Given the pressures councils face providing adult social care we are giving them the freedom to levy a 2 percent precept to help cover costs. Again, it is up to the responsible authority if they wish to exercise this.

    Even if all authorities increase by the maximum under the referendum principles, council tax will still be lower in 2019-20 in real terms compared to 2010.

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what the cost per year is of storing the London 2012 Olympics athletics warm-up track.

    David Evennett

    Parts of the London 2012 warm-up track are being stored free of charge by the London Borough of Newham.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the reasons are for the government policy not to support the progress of the European Commission’s proposed reforms to (a) trade and defence instruments and (b) the lesser duty rule.

    Anna Soubry

    The UK fully supports modernisation of the European Union’s/Commission’s trade defence instruments but believes that effective trade defence measures should be proportionate, not protectionist, and set tariffs only as high as necessary to remove the injury inflicted on EU industry without being punitive, which would hurt users of products, including downstream manufacturers, and consumers.

    The Government’s response to the Commission’s public consultation on the modernisation of trade defence instruments (TDI), in June 2012, stated:

    “The strongly held UK view is that the EU’s use of the lesser duty rule is one of the elements of the TDI regime which contributes to its being recognised as one of the most progressive global trade defence systems. Furthermore, it enhances the economic coherence of European TD actions as imposing tariffs no higher than that level needed to offset the injury caused by dumping / subsidy is entirely consistent with restoring fair competition. We have fully supported the Commission’s efforts to encourage FTA partners to adopt the lesser duty rule in their regimes. It would be a retrograde step to remove its position as a central part of the EU regime (2.3.3).”

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-05-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 4 May 2016 to Question 35960, on universal credit, what the exclusion criteria are.

    Priti Patel

    In some cases, where a claimant would be excluded from work related requirements they will be excluded from the pool of “qualifying claimants”. They will also cease to be part of the scheme if the same circumstances apply after they have been selected. These are:

    • recent victims of domestic violence;
    • claimants who provide medical evidence of unfitness for work pending a work capability assessment;
    • prisoners;
    • claimants absent from GB for medical treatment etc;
    • claimants suffering a bereavement;
    • claimants undergoing treatment for drug or alcohol addiction.
  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-06-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the judiciary on the potential change in the number of litigants in person in personal injury claims as a result of the changes to personal injury law and procedures announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement and Spending Review 2015; and if he will make a statement.

    Dominic Raab

    Discussions related to the new reforms have been held with the judiciary and with members of Claims Portal Limited’s board. The Government will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders, including other Government Departments, in taking the work forward and will consult on the detail in due course. The consultation will be accompanied by an impact assessment.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-09-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Joint Statement of UK anti-caste organisations submitted on 18 August to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the United National Human Rights Commissioner and the UN Secretary General, and whether they will press for those British organisations that submitted the Joint Statement to be given the opportunity to express their concerns to the United Nations office in Geneva and to report on the condition of Dalits and minorities in India.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have received the Joint Statement from the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance (ACDA) and will respond. We are aware of the particular concerns raised around minority rights highlighted by the ACDA.

  • Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on 2015-11-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of how many public sector employees will be affected by the proposed £95,000 public sector exit cap.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government set out its proposals for the cap on public sector exit payments in the consultation document published on 31 July 2015 and confirmed the design of the cap in the consultation response document published on 16 September 2015. The consultation document gave details of the number of exits over recent years that cost the taxpayer more than £100,000.

    The precise number of those affected by the public sector exit payment cap will depend on the number and type of exits in coming years. However, in recent years the large majority of exits in the public sector are below the level of the cap. For example, the Whole of Government Accounts states that, in 2013-14, 1,838 out of 72,445 pay outs were in excess of £100,000.

    The exit payment clauses currently before the House of Lords in the Enterprise Bill set out how the cap is expected to apply.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2015-12-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to paragraph 1.81 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, whether the protection of overall police spending includes (a) British Transport Police, (b) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and (c) the Ministry of Defence Police.

    Mike Penning

    Section 1.81 of the Spending Review document refers to the 43 police forces for which the Home Office provides funding. The Home Office does not hold information on the impact of the Spending Review on the British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary or the Ministry of Defence Police. This information will be available from the Department for Transport, Department for Energy and Climate Change and Ministry of Defence respectively.