Tag: Rebecca Long-Bailey

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2024.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), after his eloquent and passionate maiden speech. A huge welcome to all new Members; it is the greatest privilege in the world to be here and to be the voice of the place that you love —never take that for granted.

    We on the Labour Benches are under no illusions as to the scale of task ahead of us in government. Fourteen years of successive Conservative Governments have ravaged our public services, stifled investment, created gross levels of inequality, and entrenched widespread job and housing insecurity, so the Gracious Speech offered welcome national renewal. Legislation promising to hand power back to local leaders, support for local growth plans, and greater protections for renters were welcome and long overdue. The new deal for working people was also a pivotal step in ensuring that the fruits of our economic growth are shared by everyone, not just a select few.

    On child poverty, the Government have pledged to roll out breakfast clubs and to develop a strategy to reduce child poverty, which is very welcome, but such extensive plans will take some considerable time to pass through into legislation. In the meantime, there are immediate measures that the Government must take now to alleviate the financial strain faced by so many in my constituency. Indeed, on the issue of child poverty alone, we are in a state of what can only be described as national crisis. Research by Loughborough University on behalf of the End Child Poverty coalition reported that a staggering 333,000 children in Greater Manchester and Lancashire alone are now living in poverty. That is an increase of over 31,000 compared with the previous year. The hope that these families place on the new Labour Government is immense, so my first urgent request of our new Labour Government is to lift these children out of poverty immediately by scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit.

    My second urgent request of the Government is to settle the debt of honour we owe to women born in the 1950s who suffered pension injustice. The issue now is not whether the women faced injustice; the ombudsman’s report earlier this year made it clear that they did, that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration, that the women are entitled to urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must urgently identify a mechanism for providing that appropriate remedy. They need fair, fast, simple redress and an apology from the DWP. There is no excuse for delay. The report was laid before Parliament in March, and at least one woman will die waiting for justice every 13 minutes. They deserve nothing less than justice, so I hope that the Government urgently identify a mechanism for appropriate remedy now.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    I would not normally intervene having just entered the House, but knowing that my friend, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), was speaking, I felt I ought to come and hear her, and particularly to support the remark she has just made about those women so badly affected in the way that she has described. It is critical, as she said, that this matter is addressed speedily—and, actually, that means simplifying the system. That will not please everyone, by the way; some people want a detailed analysis, but that is unfortunately likely to lead to obfuscation. It is very important, as she describes, to have a simple mechanism which delivers justice to these women speedily.

    Rebecca Long Bailey

    I agree wholeheartedly. The work that the right hon. Member and I carried out throughout the last Parliament is an example of how we can work co-operatively with Members of opposite parties and find those issues on which we can serve our constituents well. He joins us at an opportune moment, as I am about to talk about an issue that is close to his heart.

    My final urgent request of the Government is one of moral duty: to recognise, support and compensate our nuclear testing veterans and their families. These are the men who put their lives at risk in dangerous atomic weapons tests to ensure our long-term security. For decades, campaigners, Labrats, veterans and their families, and the indefatigable Susie Boniface have been fighting for recognition for these heroes. They have highlighted scientific studies that show increased rates of miscarriage, increased birth defects, and the same rate of genetic damage as clean-up workers at Chernobyl.

    Of course, the campaigners take pride in the fact that the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister met them when Labour was in opposition, and supported their campaign to receive the long overdue recognition they deserve. But despite winning the campaign for medallic recognition, the UK sadly still remains the only nuclear power that refuses them adequate compensation, research and support, unlike the US, France, Canada and Australia. Medal criteria are very limited, there has not been a formal recognition event and even access to war pensions has been impeded.

    Veterans, and sometimes their wives, widows and descendants, have reported making repeated requests to gain access to their blood or urine testing records from samples the veterans recall being taken during the nuclear testing programmes. Sadly, many confirm that their service medical records frequently do not include the test results, and they just do not understand why. The data is vital for their war pension applications and for understanding the conditions they suffer, but sadly the absence of such records means that many veterans’ war pension applications are refused.

    I want to place on record my thanks to hon. Members right across the House who have continued to support these veterans, particularly the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who has worked closely with me and campaigners in recent years. This week, we have both written to the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), requesting that they urgently meet us, veterans and campaigners, and work with us to deal with their concerns. We hope that is made an urgent priority, because ultimately the Government can and should deliver justice for these families, and now is the right time to do so.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2015-11-23.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 18 November 2015 to Question 16174, what success his Department has had in targeting operational and intelligence activity on tackling online VAT fraud.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is actively targeting operational and intelligence activity, as well as a range of other options, to tackle this issue. The work is ongoing. However, HMRC is unable to give details of specific results in respect of any individual taxpayer because of taxpayer confidentiality.

  • 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.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-01-05.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the annual running cost is of the Council of Economic Advisers; and what office space that council is allocated within the government estate.

    Harriett Baldwin

    Members of the Government’s Council of Economic Advisers meet every day to discuss the design and formation of government policy. Details of the Council’s membership and remuneration are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-adviser-data-releases-numbers-and-costs-december-2015. The Council operates from HM Treasury. Running costs cannot be disaggregated from the department’s budget.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the amount that will be raised in each local authority by the two per cent social care precept in the first year of its operation.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 of 26 November 2015 (Cm9162) estimates that if all local authorities use the adult social care precept to its maximum effect, it could raise nearly £2 billion a year by 2019-20. In the first year of its operation, we estimate that it would raise nearly £400 million.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479749/52229_Blue_Book_PU1865_Web_Accessible.pdf

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Government’s memorandum submitted to the Lords Secondary Legislation Committee on 28 January 2016, what the evidential basis is for the statement that there will be no cash losers from the reduction of the income rise disregards for tax credits.

    Damian Hinds

    As announced in the combined Autumn Statement and Spending Review, the amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase within the year before their tax credit award is adjusted (the income rise disregard), will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The reduction to the income rise disregard will stop one family receiving a higher tax credit award over another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances, which makes the system fairer. The household income of families before it rises will inform how they might be effected by a reduction in the income rise disregard.

    The only people who will be affected are those who will see an income increase of more than £2,500 in-year.

    Due to the way that tax credits are calculated, the amount an award will be adjusted by – because of an increase in income – will depend upon a claimant’s individual circumstances, such as the household’s income before it rises. No one will be a cash loser because their income will have increased. As an example, for an individual with a wage of £12,000, an income increase of £2,501 would lead to an adjustment in their tax credit award of just 41 pence. An increase of less than £2,500 would see no change at all.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-03-24.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether revenue raised from the planned soft drink industry levy will be hypothecated for the public health budget.

    Mr David Gauke

    In England, revenue from the soft drinks industry levy will be used to double the PE and sport premium for primary schools, expand school breakfast clubs and support more secondary schools to offer a longer school day, including more sport. The Barnett formula will be applied to spending on these new initiatives in the normal way.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of legal costs (a) to her Department and (b) to the academies and local authorities affected arising following the transfer of all local authority school land to the Secretary of State under the plans to convert all schools to academies; and what estimate she has made of such costs of the granting of leases to each academy under those plans.

    Edward Timpson

    In our recent White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, we announced our intention for the freehold of land at community schools to transfer to the Secretary of State on their conversion to Academy status. We are clear that we want all schools to become academies and are considering proposals to remove obstacles for schools – there are too many cases where negotiations over the use of land have delayed conversion to academy status.

    We are now working closely with local authorities to explore how these transfers will work in practice, including how we can best minimise the costs local authorities already face in relation to resolving land issues during conversion. The Secretary of State for Education already has the power to direct that where academy land is no longer required for a school, the land or any proceeds of sale can be returned to the local authority. That power will remain unchanged. We will, in considering how best to implement these measures, of course ensure that local needs are taken into account.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-05-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department is taking to support issuances of land titles and registration of land in Rwanda.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    DFID has supported the Government of Rwanda’s Land Tenure Regularisation (LTR) programme since 2009. This ambitious programme is supporting the issuance of a registered land title to every landholder in Rwanda as well as establishing systems for maintenance of those titles to facilitate investment and support women’s rights to land. To date, the programme has delivered 7.1 million registered titles, out of a target of 8 million.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will assess the effect of the use of Lariam on the quality of performance of military personnel on operations.

    Mark Lancaster

    Mefloquine (commercially known as Lariam) is an effective anti-malarial that is used by many militaries to protect their personnel while on operations. There is no defined caveat from any advisory body in the world that suggests the use of mefloquine should be restricted in military personnel or people who handle weapons.

    Although there is no evidence that mefloquine impairs function, in accordance with guidance from Public Health England, the Civil Aviation Authority and others, the drug is not used by military aircrew. Mefloquine is also not used by divers, as its side effects could potentially be confused with decompression or narcosis events.

    In October 2015, the results were published of a Ministry of Defence questionnaire-based study of anti-malarial use by UK Service personnel training in Kenya during 2012 and 2013. This found that significantly more doxycycline than mefloquine users reported that one or more adverse effects had interfered with their ability to do their job.