UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Margaret Hodge

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-04-21.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken in respect of the policy of including an anti-lobbying clause in government grant agreements.

    Matthew Hancock

    Departments are currently working with grant recipients on the implementation of the guidance, in relation to the new grants clause. This will include a consideration of equality impact issues, which will be reported centrally to the Cabinet Office for assessment, with regards to finalising the central policy by 1 May 2016.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will publish a list of all secondees to his Department from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what the role was of each of those secondees.

    Caroline Nokes

    The information requested is not collated centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many times his Department has used the services of (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what (i) work was undertaken and (ii) the cost to the public purse was on each such occasion.

    Sir Alan Duncan

    DELOITTE
    2013/14:£69,000
    2014/15:£33,000
    2015/16:£121,000

    ERNST & YOUNG
    2013/14:£480,000
    2014/15:£328,000
    2015/16:£181,000

    KPMG
    2013/14:£140,000
    2014/15:£116,000
    2015/16:£132,000

    PWC
    2013/14:£355,000
    2014/15:£377,000
    2015/16:£1,420,000

    Consultants
    2013/14:£1,500,000
    2014/15:£1,600,000
    2015/16:£1,100,000

    All applicable expenditure with these companies is published as part of HMG’s Transparency Agenda at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/foreign-office-spend-over-25000.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Attorney General, on what date the Serious Fraud Office first received information on allegations of bribery and corruption at Rolls Royce.

    Robert Buckland

    The Serious Fraud Office first received information concerning allegations of bribery and corruption at Rolls Royce in November 2011.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Margaret Hodge – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the progress made by Montserrat in meeting the Prime Minister’s ambition for a public register of beneficial ownership since June 2013.

    James Duddridge

    I refer the Right Honourable Lady to the answer given by my Hon Friend the member for Hertfordshire South West (David Gauke), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to questions 10437, 10438 and 10448, which sets out the criteria we expect the Overseas Territories to meet in relation to their central register of company beneficial ownership, or similarly effective system. We are in discussions with the Montserrat authorities on this and are offering technical assistance as they develop their proposals.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how he plans to ensure that an additional 20,000 patients a year will have their cancers genetically tested as part of the Government’s Cancer Taskforce strategy; and what data he plans to collect on those people who are tested.

    Jane Ellison

    The independent Cancer Taskforce recognised the need for more accessible molecular diagnostic provision in its report, Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015-2020, published in July 2015.

    Following this, in September 2015, we confirmed a commitment from NHS England to implement the recommendations on molecular diagnostics. This will mean that around 25,000 additional people a year will have their cancers genetically tested to identify the most effective treatments. NHS England is currently working with partners across the healthcare system to produce an implementation plan to determine how best to take forward the Taskforce’s recommendations.

    Regional Genetic Laboratories are central to all NHS Genomic Medicine Centres and have been the focal point for adoption of genomic technologies into healthcare for over 40 years. These laboratories are currently the focus of an NHS England Specialised Commissioning intended re-procurement exercise, the invitation to tender for which is due to be launched towards the end of the year. The re-procurement aims to create a new genomic laboratory infrastructure for the National Health Service in England based on centralised and local genomic laboratory hubs to support rare, inherited and acquired disease, as well as the future personalised medicine requirements inclusive of molecular diagnostics in stratified medicine.

    In September 2015, the NHS England Board approved the development of a Personalised Medicine Strategy for the NHS, to be discussed at the NHS England Board in the summer.

    This work will build on the 100,000 Genomes Project, in which the NHS is a key delivery partner. The Project will sequence whole genomes from eligible patients with rare diseases and cancers. It is moving the NHS to a new model of diagnosis and treatment based on understanding of underlying genetic causes and drivers of disease and a comprehensive phenotypic characterisation of the disease (rather than deduction from symptoms and individual diagnostic tests). This will be critical in guiding the approach to molecular diagnostics.

    In addition, changes to the section 118 guidance implemented in the national tariff payment system for molecular diagnostics from April will support clinical change and practice. This includes a number of molecular diagnostic tests to be funded separately by commissioners for the first three years before being incorporated into national prices for treatment episodes.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many times his Department has used the services of (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what (i) work was undertaken and (ii) the cost to the public purse was on each such occasion.

    Caroline Nokes

    We are unable to provide the requested information on the number of times the Department for Work and Pensions has used the services of consulting firms, including details of the work undertaken and cost to the public purse for each occasion. To do so would incur a disproportional cost to the Department because of how the data is held on our systems, and the time and resource required for extracting and analysing it.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will publish a list of all secondees to his Department from (a) PwC, (b) Deloitte, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) other consulting firms in the last three financial years; and what the role was of each of those secondees.

    David Mowat

    In line with privacy and data protection legislation as well as standing Cabinet Office instructions, the exact numbers and details of individual roles cannot be published. This is to prevent the personal identification of individuals either directly or in combination with other published information.

    There have been two appointments in total into Senior Civil Servant roles as follows, during the years in question as follows:

    Name

    Start date

    Grade

    End date

    Seconding Organisation

    Role

    Robin Furnell

    24/08/2015

    SCS1

    31/12/2016

    Accenture

    Contract Management Function Implementation Lead

    Nicole Mather

    22/04/2014

    SCS2

    22/10/2016

    Deloitte (formally seconded to BEIS and part-time to DH)

    Director – Office for Life Sciences

    During the same period of time, at lower grades the following table summarises the disclosable information

    Company

    Numbers

    Grades of role

    PwC

    5 or fewer

    HEO and SEO

    Deloitte

    5 or fewer

    Analyst and G7

    Ernst and Young

    5 or fewer

    G7

    KPMG

    0

    –

    Accenture

    0

    –

    The above information does not include secondees to the Department’s agencies or arms’ length bodies.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 7.2, Heading contingent liabilities, page 176 of the Annual Report and Accounts 2015-16 of HM Revenue and Customs, published in December 2015, under what area of legislation are those cases of current liability.

    Jane Ellison

    The Trust Statement is prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards adapted or interpreted for public sector context.

    International Accounting Standard 37 – ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’ is the standard that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) follows when calculating the level of contingent liability to be included with the disclosure notes to the Trust Statement. The contingent liabilities relate to legal cases for which the outcome is uncertain and HMRC considers that there is only a possible rather than probable likelihood that they will be required to make a payment, or the amount cannot be reliably measured.

    These cases are not current liabilities – they are a possible obligation dependent on whether some uncertain future event occurs.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2022 Speech on UK Companies Involved in Russia

    Margaret Hodge – 2022 Speech on UK Companies Involved in Russia

    The speech made by Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.

    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for his reply. However, after listening to it, I would simply say to him that the Government have constantly talked about taking back control, and if there is one issue on which they should take back control it is this: ensuring that no British company invests in Russia.

    Today is the 286th day of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In February, three days after the war started, BP said it

    “will exit its 19.75% shareholding in Rosneft”,

    Russia’s main oil company. Despite this promise, BP remains one of the largest shareholders. According to the excellent research by Global Witness, it is set to receive £580 million in dividends on the back of bumper profits fuelled by the war. Does the Minister agree with me that it is utterly shameful that a large, publicly listed British company profits from the sale of oil that is funding Putin’s war?

    Does the Minister further agree with the words of Mr Ustenko, President Zelensky’s economic adviser? He wrote to BP and said:

    “This is blood money, pure and simple, inflated profits made from the murder of Ukrainian civilians.”

    BP’s claim that it is locked in as a shareholder is both laughable and easily solved. To put this into perspective, BP’s dividends are equivalent to over one quarter of the total military and humanitarian aid provided by the UK Government to Ukraine.

    Does the Minister agree with Mr Ustenko that BP and any other company still invested in Russia’s fossil fuels must donate the entirety of its wartime profits to the victims of the war? Does he further agree that it is our duty to ensure that companies are not damaging Britain’s national interest? Will this Government therefore work to persuade BP to donate the entirety of its Russian dividends to the reconstruction of Ukraine, and if that fails, will the Minister commit to acting and forcing it to do so through a special windfall tax?

    James Cartlidge

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and pay tribute to her for her long-standing record of holding Governments to account on issues such as sanctions and international finance—I was previously Justice Minister when we had the strategic lawsuits against public participation issue. She has been very active, including across party lines.

    I entirely understand why people feel so strongly on this subject, and I feel strongly too—what Putin has done in Ukraine is appalling—but I am not going to comment on a specific UK company or taxpayer or their commercial decisions. I have set out the range of measures we are taking, and it is important to stress that while we all want companies that have committed to divesting to do so, there are of course issues. I do not say this with specific prejudice to any individual, firm or company, but, for example, should a firm divesting from Russia by selling its shares sell them in such a way that they returned to an individual entity that was sanctioned, there would rightly be condemnation of that. This is not a straightforward process—and I repeat that I do not say that in reference to any specific company.

    I totally agree that we should do everything possible to support the people of Ukraine, and we can be very proud of the enormous effort our country has made. The right hon. Lady rightly talked about our duty, and I believe we have a duty to support Ukraine. We are second only to the United States in the amount of aid we have given to the people of Ukraine, now totalling over £6 million, and, as I understand it, we have been training its soldiers—22,000 of them—since 2015. This country has done its bit in relation to Ukraine. We are proud of that, and of course we want to do more and go further, which is why we work with our partners; that is why only on Monday we announced a decision in partnership with G7 states and Australia in relation to Russian oil across the piece. We have a record of taking decisive action, and in terms of the Treasury, of the most powerful sanctions against Russia on record, which is hitting its economy. We of course have no dispute with the Russian people, who will feel the impact of that, but we are doing everything possible, bar direct military action, to support the people of Ukraine.