UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Paul Maynard

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Norman Lamb

    From 2008-09, the Department made £340 million available (for three years), for palliative care and end-of-life services, short breaks, community equipment and wheelchair services for disabled children and young people.

    In each of the last five years, we have made an annual grant of £10 million to 40 children’s hospice services. An additional £721,000 was made available from 2012-13 for seven new children’s hospices not in receipt of the original grant. In addition to the annual grant, we also made available a one-off grant of £19 million in 2010-11 to support local children’s palliative services and over £7.5 million in 2013-14 in capital grants for children’s hospices and hospices at home.

    We have also provided £400 million to the National Health Service over four years from 2011 for family carers to have breaks from their caring responsibilities. In the 2013 Spending Review, we announced the £3.8 billion Better Care Fund, which includes £130 millionfunding for carers’ breaks for 2015-16.

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    The Department for Education does not directly fund organisations to deliver short breaks and respite services for disadvantaged children, young people and their families; this is done at the local authority level.

    In the case of disabled children and young people however, the Department for Education has made available to local authorities £800 million to invest in short breaks services between April 2011 and March 2015, through unringfenced grants. In 2011-12 and 2012-13, an additional £40 million of capital funding per annum was made available to local authorities to invest in short breaks equipment and infrastructure, also in unringfenced grants. It has been for local authorities to decide how to use this funding to provide the short breaks provision for disabled children that is needed locally and to support access to it.

    While the Department does not directly fund providers of short breaks for disabled children, it has funded a number of organisations over the last five financial years to help increase access to such provision and to improve its quality.

    A table setting out details of the fnding has been placed in the House Library.

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Mrs Helen Grant

    DCMS has not provided any funding to organisations aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families. However, DCMS and VisitEngland contributed to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Social Tourism. VisitEngland also works with the Family Holiday Association (FHA) to raise awareness of the issue of families excluded from taking holidays. I visited ‘Kent Life’ in March 2014 to promote Visit Kent’s social tourism pilot with the FHA.

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Brandon Lewis

    Funding for such schemes would be a matter for local authorities, rather than being directly funded by my Department.

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    I am not aware of any specific direct payments of this type made by the Cabinet Office. Details of organisations funded by the Cabinet Office can be found on gov.uk

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Jenny Willott

    Departmental records show that in each of the last five financial years, no funding was made in respect of supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families.

  • Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Paul Maynard – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Maynard on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which organisations have received how much funding from his Department aimed at supporting access to short breaks and respite provision for children, young people and their families experiencing all types of disadvantage in each of the last five financial years.

    Mike Penning

    The Department has no schemes of this nature.

  • Paul Maynard – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Paul Maynard – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Paul Maynard, the Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    It is my sorrowful task to express the grief and sadness of the people of Blackpool North and Cleveleys at the loss of Her late Majesty. We also send our best wishes to our new King Charles III. As part of the red rose county, we have lost not just our monarch but our Duke of Lancaster.

    I am one of those who never had the chance to meet Her Majesty, like the vast majority of my constituents, but I know the affection in which we all held her. Every flag displayed on every house, every strip of bunting hung up in every street, every cupcake consumed at every event in the summer for the platinum jubilee demonstrated the affection in which she was held across the Fylde coast. Now Blackpool has even dimmed its famous illuminations out of respect for her passing.

    In Blackpool, we remember fondly the last time the Queen came to our town, in 2009, to see the royal variety performance. I have often wondered what a woman in her early 80s made of the pop sensations of 2009, as she sat there probably wishing that it would all be over soon and she could go to bed. One lesson I took from that is that, for pop stars and indeed politicians, fame is transitory, but the renown of a monarch such as her will echo down the ages.

    For seven decades, the Queen has been inextricably intertwined with our nationhood, our sense of identity and who we are as a nation. She has shared our highs and our lows, our triumphs and our disasters, and we have shared hers—the high times, the good times, the jubilees and the celebrations, but also the lows. Who will ever forget the sight of her sitting alone in St George’s Chapel in Windsor at the funeral of her late husband?

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) used the word “uncertainty” as we began our tributes today, and I feel that sense of uncertainty myself—I feel somewhat bereft. We face difficult, uncertain times, but we look to the Queen’s example of duty, sacrifice, regard for others and steadfastness. Whatever the coming years and months may hold, we will hold true to her memory and the example she set. May she rest in peace. God save the King.

  • Paul Maynard – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    Paul Maynard – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    The speech made by Paul Maynard, the Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He always speaks with great insight and I always find him worth listening to. I am sure he would agree that, after local elections, whichever party is represented, when a councillor loses their seat, we should have some sympathy. Whether in Harrow, or anywhere else in the country, those councillors were all engaged in public service, just as we are, and they will be disappointed that they have ceased to serve the public. Whether in Harrow, where Labour lost seats, or in other parts of the country where the Conservative party lost seats, we should think of those diligent public servants who have lost their chance to serve.

    It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), a fellow coastal MP. There is nothing he said in his analysis of the needs of his constituents with which I would disagree one scintilla, and he has saved me from making many points.

    It has taken me 12 years to work out that the best time to speak in a debate on the Queen’s Speech is on the day of the speech itself. I get 10 minutes, not just the three we normally get on the day after the speech, or the day after that, so I will make the most of them. I normally do not like the day of the Queen’s Speech debate. For me it is a matinee pantomime of “yah boo sucks” and, in my view, often, those early debates, when we are all crammed in the Chamber, show the House at its worst. Today, it seems a little different. It might have been the slightly low-wattage contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is more likely to be down to the seriousness of the times with which we are confronted, whether in Ukraine or domestically in our constituencies, as the people we represent face a cost of living crisis and a challenge to their financial security day in, day out, at every moment.

    I often hear a cry from politicians, the media and constituents that what the Government are doing is not enough. At the moment I am not quite sure what “enough” would look like. The Government cannot craft a solution whereby global costs rise but no one feels the consequences in the UK. But that does not mean that nothing can or should be done. The inflationary pressures that we currently face are largely external: the rising cost of foreign oil and gas; the disruption to global supply chains caused by covid, which lingers on and reoccurs in China thanks to its zero-covid strategy. We cannot change China’s approach to covid—only harsh economic realty will do that. What does matter, however, is the speed and agility of our domestic response here in the UK, and I say candidly to all Conservative MPs gathered here this evening—all one of them—[Interruption.] I mean the Back Benchers, not those on the Front Bench. I say to them that we have to stop campaigning like it is 2016, and start governing like it is 2022. None of my constituents who live in eight of the 10 poorest neighbourhoods in the country give one fig about what box I crossed in a referendum six years ago. They want to know what I, and the Government I am supporting, are doing to tackle the cost of living crisis at the moment.

    Some argue that the answer is to increase public spending left, right and centre, and to put more money into the economy, but in my view that would have an inflationary impact. At the risk of sounding unfashionably Thatcherite to what is at times rather a left-ish Government, I argue that we have to drive inflation out by controlling the money supply, not fuel it by responding to the front pages of tabloid newspapers. That is not inconsistent with protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Nothing will have a worse impact on my constituents than rampaging inflation. It harms the most vulnerable in society; it harms the poorest the most. That is why inflation is our biggest enemy, as many have said today.

    I therefore welcome a number of the proposed Bills, particularly the financial services Bill, which is a chance to tackle some of the small print of the cost of living crisis. In particular, I welcome the provisions on access to cash—an issue that I have not shut up about in this place for the past two years. I will scrutinise the detail, and if I am not satisfied, amendments will be tabled. I also want much faster action on the regulation of buy now, pay later products—an issue on which I and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) have campaigned for many years. I know the Government’s consultation closed on 6 January, and they are cogitating and contemplating what to do next, but things are changing rapidly in that sector and we hear ever more common stories of people using buy now, pay later products to pay for groceries. This is no longer about buying discretionary items or clothing during lockdown; this is about people using buy now, pay later products for the essentials—for energy or for food. The importance of getting regulation in place is massive, and it must happen now.

    I very much welcome the pilots that the Government are introducing for no-interest loans, which are being undertaken on behalf of the Government by Fair4All and Toynbee Hall. That must move so much more urgently. The idea has been floating around the Government for years, and it cannot be just a curiosity for policy wonks. It has to be an urgent priority for the Government to help move people away from loan sharks who charge extortionate interest rates. No-interest loans must be the way forward. I also hope to see interim provisions in the financial services Bill to improve the regulation of funeral plan providers. We have seen the collapse of Safe Hands, and I am sure many hon. Members have been contacted by constituents who now face great uncertainty over how the funerals of their loved ones will be paid for. The Government have to step in, but I am not hearing much from them.

    Having learned the delights of amending legislation for the first time in the previous parliamentary Session, by trying to amend the Building Safety Bill, I now have a taste for it. I am looking forward to having a go with the financial services Bill, as well as the Online Safety Bill, which I am getting a bit nervous about because no one seems able to define “harm”. Let me help them by offering one definition of harm, which is physical harm.

    In the few minutes I have left I want to speak about a campaign by a young man called Zach Eagling, who has epilepsy, as do I. At times, rather unpleasant and cruel people seem to think it is a good idea to send over social media flashing images that are designed to trigger epileptic fits in those with epilepsy. To me, that is a form of online harm—who could disagree? The Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill agreed and argued that such a clause should go in, as did the Law Commission, but as of yet there is no such a clause. If we are struggling to define “harm”, let us start with physical harm, because that can be quantified. It could be fatal to force an epileptic fit, which could occur in any circumstance, and the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

    I would have loved to have seen other Bills in the Queen’s Speech, including private Members’ Bills that I have promoted in recent years. Why was abolition of the House of Lords not in the Queen’s speech, for heaven’s sake? The compulsory introduction of the optional preferential vote—a tentative step towards proportional representation—was also not in the Queen’s speech. Whatever came over the Government? My favourite —once again, this is aimed at the Front-Bench—is an annual review of ministerial competence undertaken by an outside body to assist the Prime Minister in making decisions on who should be appointed to Government. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is on the Front Bench, would pass with flying colours, but it is incumbent on the Government in a cost of living crisis, when our constituents are under such immense pressure, to do their best to have the very best people working on these intractable and difficult problems.

    It is not simply a matter of finding a switch, as I think the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) mentioned. We can pull all the switches we like, but there are some fundamentals in our society that must also change. That is what the Conservative party should be doing: not looking back to 2016 but looking forward to a brighter Conservative future.

  • Paul Maynard – 2021 Speech on the Government’s Management of the Economy

    Paul Maynard – 2021 Speech on the Government’s Management of the Economy

    The speech made by Paul Maynard, the Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, in the House of Commons on 23 February 2021.

    Let us be clear about this debate: it was Labour who failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining, so that when the financial crisis struck, we lacked the resilience we needed as a nation to do what was necessary. Labour spent a decade pretending that it never happened—that it was a global crisis that did not affect us here and was nothing to do with them. But there was no money left, as that famous letter said. Despite having spent the last few weeks campaigning to regulate the “Buy now, pay later” sector, it is clear that Gordon Brown was the founder of the Klarna approach: he spent now and bought now, expecting the British people to be the ones to pay later.

    After 2010, the Conservatives did fix the roof, and we now have the financial resilience we need to do what we have had to do to protect jobs and livelihoods as the coronavirus wave broke across our shores. Labour harp on about those they claim have not benefited from a Conservative Government, both before and during the pandemic. However, it would be remiss of me, representing a constituency with so much deprivation, not to observe that it is this Conservative Government who cut income tax by around £1,200 for the average basic rate taxpayer, by lifting the income tax threshold to £12,500. Labour’s approach, of course, was to abolish the 10p rate of income tax. Income inequality, however we measure it, is lower than it was in 2009-10, and a third fewer children live in a workless household. Although there is more to do to tackle in-work poverty, I find it hard to credit that some see this reduction still as a bad thing.

    We introduced a national living wage, which raised incomes in areas of low average incomes such as my constituency, and universal credit to address the challenges of seasonal unemployment, which were such a scourge in seaside resorts, and let us not forget that the top 1% in this country pay a greater share of income tax than they did when Labour was in power.

    To be fair to the shadow Chancellor, who I believe is that rare thing, a thoughtful politician, I do not think she would deliberately seek to drive the economy over the cliff. However, I fear that she would be too busy rummaging in the glove box for a Labour road map to see what was fast approaching. In her Mais lecture in January, she quoted Gordon Richardson’s 1978 Mais lecture, in which he said:

    “We are now at an historical juncture when the conventional methods of economic policy are being tested.”

    In trying to apply that to now, she seemed to miss the irony that it was a criticism of precisely the statist solutions that Labour offered in the 1970s and is reheating now.

    Like every Opposition day debate so far in this Parliament, this debate has had an air of unreality about it. It is only thanks to Conservative policies that we are in the position we are in to deal with the crisis we face now.