Category: Speeches

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of support services for people with complex needs when entering the labour market; and what steps they are taking to make recruitment processes accessible for all.

    Lord Freud

    We have been engaging with a variety of stakeholders and partners, including those with an interest in people with complex needs, to understand their view of current employment support. We will soon publish a Green Paper to explore a range of options for long-term reform across different sectors enabling everyone to realise their aspirations, regardless of their health condition or disability.

    The Government is committed to enabling all disabled people to fulfil their potential. Work is an important part of this, and the Government wants all disabled people and people with a long term health condition to go as far as their talents will take them.

    We are supporting this through Access to Work, which has specialist teams to provide a dedicated service to particular groups of people including those with complex needs.

    Our new Disability Confident employer scheme went live on 14 July 2016. When employers sign up as Disability Confident they are asked to make specific meaningful offers of opportunities for disabled people such as jobs, apprenticeships, internships, and work experience opportunities.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2015-11-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of Turkey about the arrests of the senior editors of Nokta, and of journalists from Bugun and Milliyet.

    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. 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.

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-01-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans the Government has to produce further guidance on the definition of extremism used in her Department’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, Cm 9148, published in October 2015.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    Vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, in particular mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs within the Counter-Extremism Strategy definition of extremism is consistent with the incitement provisions within the Public Order Act 1986, in particular Part 3 aimed at those who stir up racial or religious hatred.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values. But we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    Government has engaged widely on the Counter-Extremism Strategy, and continues to engage with partners – including faith groups and communities on the implementation of the Strategy’s measures.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-01-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of possible links between trafficking of women and girls and the spread of the Zika virus.

    Mr David Lidington

    We are aware of meetings this week in Geneva of the WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committee, to consider whether the Zika outbreak should be designated a public health emergency of international concern. We are not aware of a connection being made with human trafficking. Were such a connection substantiated, it would be an added reason for taking firm action to eradicate this crime. Modern slavery is a global crime and requires a strong and collaborative international response. The Government’s Modern Slavery Strategy commits the Government to tackle modern slavery by working with multi-lateral institutions, foreign governments, civil society organisations and faith groups. The Government and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner have been successful in working with other Governments to include a commitment to end modern slavery in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The UK government successfully pushed for a Commonwealth Heads of Government commitment on this issue. The UK was also the first country in the world to bring in transparency in supply chains legislation, through the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, which requires businesses operating in the UK with a turnover of over £36 million to report annually on what they are doing to prevent modern slavery in their global supply chains.

  • Angela Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Angela Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Eagle on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent assessment he has made of the performance of his Department’s UK National Contact Point in investigating complaints on private sector contract compliance with UK human rights commitments.

    Anna Soubry

    The UK National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Multi-National Enterprise Guidelines considers complaints that UK based multinationals have not met the voluntary obligations of the Guidelines in regard to responsible business behaviour. Ministers have no role in the NCP’s investigation of complaints, but ensure that its final statements on complaints are available for scrutiny in the House Libraries. The UK NCP also reports annually to the OECD Investment Committee which is responsible for the Guidelines and their implementation.

    The UK Government is committed to fulfilling its obligations under the OECD Multi-National Enterprise Guidelines and maintaining a NCP which operates in line with international best practice. The UK NCP is regularly invited by the OECD to contribute to best practice sharing and the OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria has praised its effectiveness and positive outcomes.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeal hearings at the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) were (a) withdrawn and (b) adjourned as a result of the Department for Work and Pensions not sending a representative in each of the last three years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The information requested is not held centrally.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the (1) EU GDP, and (2) UK GDP, per household in 2030 in each of the three scenarios in the HM Treasury analysis The long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives (Cm 9250) published on 18 April.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    In ‘HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives’ the central estimates for the annual loss of UK GDP under the 3 alternatives (relative to remaining in the EU) in 2030 are: 3.8% in the case of the EEA, 6.2% in the case of a negotiated bilateral agreement, and 7.5% in the WTO case. Expressed in 2015 terms that means a loss of GDP per household of £2,600 for the EEA case; £4,300 for the negotiated bilateral agreement case; and £5,200 for the WTO case.

    No estimate has been made of the impact on the EU GDP per household. This reflects a cautious approach, as, for example, the main estimates for the effect of leaving the EU do not take into account the negative economic impacts on the rest of the EU as a result of UK exit or the possible foregone benefits to the UK of future EU reform.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the oral evidence given by the Minister of State for Energy to the Energy and Climate Change Committee on 24 May 2016, at Question 200, what the basis is for the Minister’s statement that the case brought by the government of Austria in the European Court on the European Commission decision on state aid for the Hinkley Point reactor has no merit; and whether that statement refers to lack of legal or of political merit.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The UK Government has intervened in the legal challenge brought by Austria against the European Commission’s State aid decision for Hinkley Point C. We have always been confident that the Commission’s decision is legally robust and, as a party to the proceedings, we have now seen the legal arguments made by Austria in their pleadings to the European General Court. It is on this basis that we do not consider that Austria has submitted a challenge of any merit. We consider that the Austrian Government, although following the correct legal procedures in challenging certain aspects of the State aid decision through the Court, has been motivated by its political stance on the future of nuclear more generally.

  • Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl McCartney on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Prime Minister, what steps 10 Downing Street has taken to prepare for the UK to leave the EU since 23 June 2016; and what further such steps 10 Downing Street plans to take in the remainder of 2016.

    Mrs Theresa May

    I refer the hon. Member to the Oral Statement I gave to the House on 7 September 2016, Official Report, column 336.

  • Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have made to ensure that effective healthcare is available in Northumberland following the closure of Rothbury Community Hospital’s in-patient ward.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    These are matters for the local National Health Service. We understand the decision was taken by NHS Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group and the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust in light of the continued extremely low use of the ward. As the suspension is a temporary measure, public consultation is not required.