Tag: Louise Haigh

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-04-13.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on publication of the registers of gifts and hospitality for civil servants.

    Matthew Hancock

    We publish details of gifts and hospitality received by the most senior civil servants on a quarterly basis.

    The rules for civil servants, including special advisers, on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality are set out in the Civil Service Code, Civil Service Management Code and departmental staff handbooks.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-04-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of increasing the eligibility threshold for carer’s allowance to enable carers working 16 hours per week on the new National Living Wage to keep their entitlement to that allowance.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The primary purpose of Carer’s Allowance is to provide a measure of financial support and recognition for people who give up the opportunity of full-time employment in order to provide regular and substantial care for a severely disabled person. It is not, and was never intended to be, a carer’s wage or a payment for the services of caring, nor is it intended to replace lost or forgone earnings in their entirety.

    The earnings limit for Carer’s Allowance is a net figure which is the figure left once income tax, National Insurance contributions and half of any contributions to an occupational or personal pension are deducted from earnings. There are also a number of other deductions which can be made that mean that people can earn significantly more than £110 per week and still be eligible for Carer’s Allowance.

    The Carer’s Allowance earnings limit is not linked to the number of hours worked. Instead, it is set at a level that aims to encourage those who give up full time work in order to undertake caring responsibilities to maintain a link with the labour market through part time work.

    Whilst the Government does not link the earnings limit to any other particular factor (including the National Living Wage), we do keep it under regular review and increase it when it is warranted and affordable, and this will continue to be our approach. Most recently in April 2015 the earnings limit was increased by 8% to £110, far outstripping the general increase in earnings.

    For those carers working around 16 hours a week on a low income and receiving Working Tax Credit, Carer’s Allowance is taken fully into account as income. That means that any loss in Carer’s Allowance is likely to be offset by an increase in Working Tax Credit, and this is one of the changes of circumstances that results in an immediate change to Tax Credits. Going forward the earnings taper in Universal Credit will help ensure that people are always better off in work.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the (a) premium income, (b) claims paid and (c) monies at risk of UK Export Finance were relating to the defence sector in each financial year from 2010-11 to 2014-15.

    Nick Boles

    The Information requested is in the table below:

    Year

    Net Premium Income[1]

    Gross Amounts At Risk[2]

    Claims Paid

    2010/11

    £ 2,597,418

    £ 1,156,123,326

    £ 0

    2011/12

    £ 11,832

    £ 1,743,249,113

    £ 0

    2012/13

    £ 42,664,931

    £ 3,364,357,183

    £ 0

    2013/14

    £ 27,162

    £ 3,063,150,515

    £ 0

    2014/15

    £ 3,472,656

    £ 2,899,169,497

    £ 0

    It should be noted that premium income relates to business supported in that financial year, whereas amounts at risk will relate to all business in respect of which contingent liability still remains.

    [1] Net of Premium due where reinsurance (if any) has been obtained.

    [2] Inclusive of amounts reinsured (if any)

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of staff in his Department were (a) payroll and (b) non-payroll staff in each financial year from 2010-11 to 2015-16.

    Mr Mark Francois

    Details of payroll and non-payroll staffing in my Department are published on Gov.uk and in the Annual Report and Accounts.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much was spent on non-payroll staff in his Department in 2015-16.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is unable to confirm the amount spent on non-payroll staff in 2015-16 until the 2015-16 Accounts have been signed off and the National Audit Office has completed its audit. This information should be available after 6 July 2016 at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications .

    In 2014-15 the FCO spent £5.9m on non payroll staff – a 24% reduction from the previous year.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how much was spent on non-payroll staff in his Department in 2015-16.

    David Mundell

    The Scotland Office spend on non-payroll staff in 2015-16 was £121,369.

  • 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 assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the capping of payments to NHS agency staff on levels of patient safety.

    Alistair Burt

    Patient safety continues to be paramount and the rules include a ‘break glass’ provision for trusts should there be a need to pay in excess of the agency price caps for patient safety reasons. Trust boards are responsible for monitoring the impact of price caps and ensuring patient safety. More broadly, the Care Quality Commission Chief Inspector of Hospitals has been clear that he wants to see fewer agency staff because of the patient safety implications – continuity of care being so important to good services for patients.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-09-15.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which companies tendered for the error and fraud tax credit contract with HM Revenue and Customs.

    Jane Ellison

    HM Revenue and Customs, under appropriate procurement transparency mandates, publishes details of all suppliers who are awarded contracts with the Department. Whilst information on all bidding companies (and their bids) is retained, the list of such companies is commercially sensitive and cannot, in this instance, be disclosed.

  • Louise Haigh – 2022 Comments on Rail Fare Increase

    Louise Haigh – 2022 Comments on Rail Fare Increase

    The comments made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Transport Secretary, on Twitter on 22 December 2022.

    The Tories have just announced a brutal near-record 6% rail fare rise.

    This savage fare hike will be a sick joke for millions reliant on crumbling services.

    People up and down this country are paying the price for twelve years of Tory failure.

  • Louise Haigh – 2022 Speech on Rail Cancellations

    Louise Haigh – 2022 Speech on Rail Cancellations

    The speech made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Rail Minister, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for granting this important urgent question. Rail services across the north are once again in meltdown. Today, almost 40 services have been cancelled on TransPennine Express alone—and those are just the published figures, because they were cancelled overnight. People are cut off from jobs and opportunities, investors I spoke to this morning in Manchester are thinking twice about investing in the north, and businesses are unable to recruit because their potential employees simply cannot rely on the train to get to work. The damage that this fiasco is doing is enormous, and in just 11 days, major timetable changes are due to come into force. I do not say it lightly, but if this were happening elsewhere in the country, the Government would have taken far greater action by now. Instead, they have—not just for weeks, but for months and years—forced the north to settle for a sub-standard service and to accept delays, cancellations and overcrowding.

    Not only did Ministers allow that, but they actually rewarded the abject failure of the operators. Six years ago, TransPennine Express had exactly the same issues it faces today. Then, as now, it blamed staff shortages and rest day working. It said six years ago that it would recruit drivers and improve resilience, but here we are again, in crisis—and the public are paying the price. Have the Government sanctioned operators or demanded improvement? No. They continue to reward failing operators such as Avanti West Coast by extending their contracts. Yesterday, it was revealed that they signed off a decision for Avanti to hand over £12 million in taxpayers’ cash as dividends to its shareholders.

    Enough is enough. We cannot continue like this. It is time for Ministers to take action. Will they put operators on a binding remedial plan to fully restore services or face penalties and withdrawal of the contract? Will they claw back the taxpayers’ money that Ministers have allowed to flow out in dividends? Can the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State is preventing an offer on rest day working between operators and unions? Enough is enough. We cannot continue like this.

    Huw Merriman

    I agree with the hon. Lady: we cannot continue like this. That is why we have set in place a series of talks and negotiations aimed at changing working practices so that train operators are not reliant on seeking the approval of workforce to run a seven-day operation. That just does not work for anyone—management, workforce or, indeed, passengers—because the train operators are then required to seek the voluntary assistance of workforce to work on certain days. The hon. Lady says that we cannot carry on like this and that enough is enough, so I hope that she will join me in pushing for reforms.

    With regard to Network Rail reforms, a 4% plus 4% offer has been put on the table. That can be self-funded and allow workforce to move to better, more modern working jobs with more interaction with and assistance for passengers, and a better experience for workforce and the passenger. Yet we have been unable to reach an agreement. The hon. Lady refers to timetable changes. Those are vital for us to increase the number of Avanti services again, but if we have industrial action in December, it will be even more challenging to put them in place.

    I join the hon. Lady in saying that enough is enough and that we need change. This Government are seeking to implement change, but as Opposition Members will know, that cannot be dealt with unilaterally. It requires the agreement of the unions to modernise and change working practices. That will give train operators the ability to roster on a seven-day working basis and to see training go through on a much swifter basis. We will then have the workforce in place and the resilience. I call on the hon. Lady to not just talk about the fact that we need change, but to work with us and to influence the unions to get that change delivered.