Tag: Rebecca Long-Bailey

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2015-12-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraphs 1.207 to 1.212 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, whether financial support will be provided to the Working Class Movement Library in Salford.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Working Class Movement Library is a private reference library and archive, run by a charitable trust. The most effective archives develop strong funding models to support sustainable, resilient and innovative services. The National Archives’ website provides information to help archive services develop fundraising strategies, identify appropriate funding sources and explore a range of fundraising techniques. More information can be found at:

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/finding-funding.htm

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2015-12-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 10 December 2015 to Question 18555, whether he is consulting on what exemptions should apply to the cap on housing benefit for single under-35 claimants in social housing; and whether changes to the applications of that cap will be implemented through new regulations.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The existing exemptions that already apply to private rented sector tenants aged less than 35 will be carefully considered prior to implementing the Local Housing Allowance rate for similar tenants living in the social rented sector. Consultation forms a part of the policy development.

    This change will require legislative amendments.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-01-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assistance his Department provides for members of the Yemeni community in the UK to contact or find out information on relatives in Yemen affected by the civil war in that country.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    For the past four years Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Travel Advice has consistently advised against all travel to Yemen. We recommend that British nationals in Yemen leave immediately. In addition to ongoing fighting, there remains a very high threat of kidnap and unlawful detention from militia groups, armed tribes, criminals and terrorists. The operations of our Embassy in Sana’a have been suspended since February 2015, which makes it difficult to provide any assistance in country. The FCO would not usually be responsible for facilitating contact between family members in a conflict, but as far as we are aware telephone communication is still possible in some areas.

  • 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 paragraph 1.122 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, what estimate his Department has made of the average change in tax credit award as a result of reducing the income rise disregard 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 Ministry of Justice

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to paragraph 1.287 of Budget 2016, where those centres of expertise will be located; what those centres will be responsible for; and how those centres will be funded.

    Mike Penning

    The MoJ National Programme will create substantial centres of expertise outside the capital so that we become a more nationally distributed department. We are currently developing options for how we will do this including the exact numbers that will be relocated to the regions and where they will be located.

  • 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, whether a property management company will be created for land held as a result of the proposals to transfer land owned by local authorities to the Secretary of State as part of the policy of converting all schools to academies.

    Edward Timpson

    We have no plans to create a property management company to hold land transferred to the Secretary of State as a result of the proposals outlined in our White Paper for converting community schools. Our expectation is that any such land would be held by the Secretary of State to ensure the land is safeguarded for educational use.

    We are separately developing proposals for a new body of property specialists to help meet our commitment to deliver 500 more free schools by 2020. Their focus will be on acquiring sites for free schools; rather than the management of existing school land. Finding sites quickly is often the biggest obstacle to opening new schools, and this proposal will help ensure we have the right people working for us to secure best value for the taxpayer.

  • 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 conditionality in relation to governance and human rights is applied to aid to Rwanda.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    Decisions on aid to Rwanda are informed by judgements about the Government of Rwanda’s commitment to DFID’s partnership principles, which include respect for political and civil rights. In light of concerns in this area, DFID Ministers have agreed that the UK no longer provides General or Sector Budget Support to the Government of Rwanda. Rather, we direct funding into specific sectors, targeting particular results.

  • 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 2016-06-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether it is his policy to require social housing providers to ensure that a proportion of their properties are adapted for disabled residents.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Government already has measures in place to help people with disabilities to live independently. It has committed to support disabled people to live safely in independent accommodation suitable to their needs by investing over £1 billion pounds through Disabled Facilities Grant since 2010.

    There are no plans to require local authorities to require social housing providers to ensure that a proportion of their properties are adapted for disabled residents.

    The Government is also investing over £200 million to develop over 4,000 affordable homes providing specialised accommodation for older people and adults with physical disabilities, learning difficulties or mental health needs, through the Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund. The statutory ‘reasonable preference’ requirements ensure that priority for social housing is given to those who need to move on medical and welfare grounds, including grounds relating to a disability.

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rebecca Long Bailey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rebecca Long Bailey on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many GPs in England have specialised in mental health.

    David Mowat

    This information is not held centrally.

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    The speech made by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    The British Dental Association states that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. It says that the threat predates the pandemic, when only enough dentistry for about half the population of England was commissioned. Access to NHS dental services was already very poor in many parts of the country, but access problems have now reached an unprecedented scale, with existing deep inequalities in access and outcomes set to widen. Sadly, nowhere are those access problems more acutely felt than in my constituency of Salford and Eccles. I have been receiving unprecedented levels of casework from people who simply cannot access an NHS dentist.

    One constituent works night shifts on minimum wage. She had required urgent root canal treatment for some time but could not find an NHS dentist and could not even contemplate the cost of a private dentist, so, like millions across the country, she struggled on. The problem is now so severe that her tooth is beyond saving with root canal treatment. She is having to consider having it removed, which she is told will cost her several hundred pounds. She has not got several hundred pounds. She does not know where to turn.

    Another constituent, who is also on a low income, had been trying to find an NHS dentist for over two years. They had two broken teeth and other dental issues that they could not afford to have treated privately, so they called the emergency dentist helpline. The helpline advised them to go for private treatment. Now, at only 21 years of age, my constituent cannot afford any dental treatment at all, and they fear that they will end up losing their teeth.

    Another constituent, who is registered with a disability and who works full-time for the NHS on low pay, tried as far as Rochdale and Oldham but eventually had to pay £250 for a private tooth removal that left her with little money to live on until her next pay cheque.

    To assess the severity of the situation, my office rang every single dental practice listed on the NHS website as falling within my constituency, to inquire if they were accepting new adult NHS patients. Every single one said no, and only two said that they were taking on new NHS child patients. What is worse, when I raised that very issue with the Government back in October 2021, I was informed that they had not made an assessment of the numbers of people refused NHS dental treatment, nor did they hold any waiting list data at all on access to NHS dental services in Salford or Greater Manchester. Not even to be aware of the scale of the problem is, in itself, somewhat staggering.

    As I am sure the Minister is aware, this is not just a Salford problem, but a national one. Researchers for the BBC documentary “Disappearing Dentists”, which aired in August, attempted to call every one of the dental practices in the UK that holds an NHS contract. Of the 26 dental practices with NHS contracts across Salford, 96% were not taking new adult NHS patients, and UK-wide, 90% of practices were not taking new adult NHS patients.

    I must pay full credit to the local staff and teams across Salford: all the dentists, hygienists, therapists, nurses and administrators, and the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership’s dental commissioning team. They are giving their absolute best in incredibly difficult circumstances. However, our dental services are under unprecedented strain.

    I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the following issues in his response. First, there has been chronic underfunding of NHS dental services. In real terms, net Government spend on general dental practice in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. It is also important to note that England invests significantly less in dental services per head of population than other parts of the UK. For example, before the pandemic Government spend on NHS dentistry per capita was £37 in England, compared with £49 in Wales, £56 in Northern Ireland and £59 in Scotland. The Minister might respond by saying that in January the Government pledged £50 million for a “dentistry treatment blitz”. However, that was a time-limited, one-off injection of funding which had very modest take-up, as practices were so overstretched in trying to hit unrealistic activity targets that they struggled to find any additional capacity. The British Dental Association estimates that it would take £1.5 billion a year just to restore dental budgets to their 2010 levels. I hope that the Minister will agree to take back a proposal to his Department for the ringfencing of long-term funding on that scale.

    Secondly, the current target-based NHS dental contract is causing serious problems in the recruitment and retention of staff. The British Dental Association says that we are facing an “exodus” of dentists from the service: 75% of dentists surveyed are thinking of reducing their NHS commitments next year alone. Central to this is not only the issue of chronic underfunding that I have already mentioned, but the current discredited target-based dental contract that was imposed on the profession in 2006 and was widely considered unsustainable and unfit for purpose even before the pandemic. Indeed, in 2010 both Labour and the Conservatives committed to amending the contract. It sets restrictions on the number of NHS patients that a dentist can see, and it punishes dentists for taking on new patients with high needs.

    The Minister may, of course, refer to a package of marginal changes that the Government introduced in November, including dentists’ updating a “find a dentist” website regularly with details of the availability of appointments, a higher reward for treating three or more teeth, and a new payment rate for complex treatment. While those are of course welcome changes, sadly there is little point in setting up a “find a dentist” website for appointments when the Government know that no appointments are actually available.

    Furthermore, the British Dental Association states that the changes will do little to arrest the exodus of dentists from the service or to address the crisis in patient access, given that they have been introduced with no additional funding. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister told me when formal negotiations on fundamental long-term reform of the dental contract are due to begin.

    A constituent contacted me to express concern about the Government’s plan to go ahead with proposed changes pursuant to the recent consultation on changes to the General Dental Council’s international registration legislation despite the large number of respondents who have raised issues relating to the proposal. I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board, and will agree to review it.

    Thirdly, let me stress to the Minister that NHS dentistry must cease to be treated as an afterthought in healthcare policymaking. Changes in primary care commissioning in the Health and Care Act 2022 must not lead to further cuts, and dental services must be represented adequately in the governance structures of the new integrated care systems.

    Let me finally point out that prevention is key, but has lost its way somewhat in recent years. The Government must undertake to build on historical commitments to prevention, in parallel with support for dental services. That must include supervised brushing in early years settings, dedicated funding for new water fluoridation schemes, and measures to reduce sugar consumption.

    I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns I have raised and will address each point in turn, rather than reiterating previous Government responses on what they have done so far. What the Government have done so far clearly is not working. If my constituents cannot get access to an NHS dentist across Salford and Eccles, something needs to change urgently. Access to dental treatment should be a right, not a luxury.

    As I set out at the start, NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. My constituents are not receiving the access to care that they deserve. It is clear that urgent action is required. Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a fantastic Christmas and a happy New Year, and the same to the Minister and all staff in the House.