All 3 Ministerial Corrections debates in the Commons on 1st Feb 2024

Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 1st February 2024

(3 months, 1 week ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thursday 1 February 2024

Wales

Thursday 1st February 2024

(3 months, 1 week ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Protecting Steel in the UK
The following are extracts from the Opposition day debate on Protecting Steel in the UK on 23 January 2024.
David T C Davies Portrait David T. C. Davies
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

… No, the Government are paying £500 million to save 5,000 jobs, because they will be saved, as well as around 12,500 jobs in the supply chain…

The reality is that Tata told us that it was looking to pull out completely from the United Kingdom. If the loss of 3,000 jobs is devastating—it certainly is—how much more devastating would 5,000 be, and 12,500 jobs in the supply chain? It was a simple choice for the Government—not a good one—between seeing 3,000 people lose their jobs or around 17,500 people lose their jobs, and possibly even more. That is why the Government committed to pay £500 million towards an arc furnace. Let me make one other thing clear: the Government will not pay a penny to Tata until that arc furnace is built.

[Official Report, 23 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 265.]

David T C Davies Portrait David T. C. Davies
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

… That is what it has said to us as a Government and that is why we find ourselves in the difficult, unpleasant and awful situation of having to choose between 3,000 people losing their jobs and 17,500 people losing their jobs.

[Official Report, 23 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 266.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies):

Errors have been identified in my response to the debate on Protecting Steel in the UK. My response should have been:

David T C Davies Portrait David T. C. Davies
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

… No, the Government are paying £500 million to save 8,000 jobs, because they will be saved, as well as thousands more in the supply chain…

The reality is that Tata told us that it was looking to pull out completely from the United Kingdom. If the loss of 3,000 jobs is devastating—it certainly is—how much more devastating would 8,000 be, and thousands more in the supply chain? It was a simple choice for the Government—not a good one—between seeing 3,000 people lose their jobs or many thousands more than that. That is why the Government committed to pay £500 million towards an arc furnace. Let me make one other thing clear: the Government will not pay a penny to Tata until it formally commits to building the arc furnace.

David T C Davies Portrait David T. C. Davies
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

… That is what it has said to us as a Government and that is why we find ourselves in the difficult, unpleasant and awful situation of having to choose between 3,000 people losing their jobs or many thousands more than that.

Health and Social Care

Thursday 1st February 2024

(3 months, 1 week ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs
The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs on 30 January 2024.
Andrew Stephenson Portrait Andrew Stephenson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are around 1,400 medicines licensed in the UK, most of which are in good supply.

[Official Report, 30 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 280WH.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the right hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson):

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) in the debate on Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs.

The correct response should have been:

Andrew Stephenson Portrait Andrew Stephenson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are around 14,000 medicines licensed in the UK, most of which are in good supply.