Author: admin

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 1 March 2016 to Question 28406, for what reasons the governments within the EU that support further political integration are not listed in that Answer.

    Mr David Lidington

    It is for other national governments to explain their own approaches to further European political integration. A government may, for example, be in favour of greater integration in some areas of policy but not in others. As I said in my responses to PQ 27033 and 28406, there is clearly support in some governments within the European Union for further political integration, but there are other, more sceptical voices too. The Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, on 18 and 19 February 2016, makes clear that the Treaty references to an ‘ever closer union’ are “compatible with different paths of integration and do not compel all Member States to aim for a common destination”.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will respond to the conclusion of the Amnesty International Report 2015-16, the State of the World’s Human Rights, relating to the UK.

    Dominic Raab

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 1 March 2016, which can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-02-25/28489/

    “

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has had with other Commonwealth leaders about the need to encourage further democratic reform in the Maldives.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    On 24 February, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) met in London to discuss the situation in the Maldives. Following that, I hosted a meeting for CMAG Ministers and senior officials. I welcomed CMAG’s conclusion that their consideration of the situation in Maldives should continue. I also supported their recommendations, in particular the need for the release of political leaders and a swift implementation of reforms to strengthen separation of powers and independence of the judiciary in Maldives. I encourage the Maldives Government to implement all of CMAG’s recommendations. I also discussed the situation in the Maldives with Foreign Minister McCully during my visit to New Zealand on 21 February and with Foreign Minister Samaraweera when I visited Sri Lanka in January.

  • Yasmin Qureshi – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Yasmin Qureshi – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Yasmin Qureshi on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether soldiers from Burma Army military operations command 2 (MOC-2) light infantry battalion (LIB) 9 or Burma Army Battalion 330 have received any form of training funded by the UK Government.

    Penny Mordaunt

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 January 2016 to Question 21564, which stated that we do not provide combat training to the Burmese Army. We do however provide educational training, as well as English Language Training. We have no information to indicate that participants on these educational courses were Burmese Army soldiers from Burma Army military operations command 2 (MOC-2) light infantry battalion (LIB) 9 or Burma Army Battalion 330.

  • David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Hanson on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department has taken to review the definition of stillbirth since January 2014; and whether he has had discussions with his ministerial colleagues on changing the procedure on the registration of stillbirths to allow for the registration of deaths before 24 weeks.

    Ben Gummer

    The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, as amended, provides for the registration of babies born without signs of life after 24 weeks’ gestation, which is the legal age of viability. Parents of babies who are stillborn after 24 weeks’ gestation receive a medical certificate certifying the stillbirth and, upon registration, can register the baby’s name and receive a certificate of registration of stillbirth.

    Parliament supported a change to the stillbirth definition from “after 28 weeks” to “after 24 weeks” in 1992, following a clear consensus from the medical profession at that time that the age at which a foetus should be considered viable should be changed from 28 to 24 weeks. Medical opinion does not currently support reducing the age of viability below 24 weeks of gestation. Therefore, there are no plans to amend the stillbirth definition.

    We are aware that some parents find it very distressing that they may not register the birth of a baby born before 24 weeks. However, it is important to recognise there would also be parents distressed at the possibility of having to do so. When a baby is born without signs of life before 24 weeks’ gestation, hospitals may issue a local certificate to commemorate the baby’s birth.

    In November 2015, the Government announced a national ambition to halve by 2030 the rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth. The announcement also committed to publishing an annual report to update the public, health professionals, providers and commissioners on the progress we are making towards achieving the ambition.

    To support the system in achieving this ambition we also announced:

    ― A £2.24 million capital fund for equipment to improve safety.

    ― Over £1 million to roll out training programmes to make sure staff have the skills and confidence they need to deliver world-leading safe care.

    ― £500,000 to develop a new system that can be used consistently across the National Health Service to enable staff to review and learn from every stillbirth and neonatal death.

  • Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Brown on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will estimate the proportion of people affected by contaminated blood likely to (a) be financially advantaged, (b) have their income unchanged and (c) be financially disadvantaged by the Government’s compensation proposals.

    Ben Gummer

    The Government has committed £100 million in additional funding for a reformed payment support scheme for those affected by this tragedy. This is in addition to the current spend and the £25 million already announced in March 2015. This is significantly more than any previous government has been able to provide for those affected by this tragedy.

    Around 2,400 people in England would be financially advantaged by the Government’s proposals to provide new annual payments for those who have received a stage 1 payment from the Skipton Fund, but who have not received a stage 2 payment.

    The consultation proposes that those receiving annual payments from the Skipton Fund and MFET Ltd (879 people in England) would have their annual payment increased from £14,749 to £15,000 per year.

    Discretionary payments (currently made by the charities) vary from year to year. Currently, all infected individuals can apply for discretionary support from the three charities. The consultation proposes that going forward, discretionary support for the infected could cover travel and accommodation costs related to ill-health. However, we are seeking views on this in the consultation and are keen to hear people’s views on this and all other proposals being made.

    Bereaved spouses and partners who currently receive support from the charities are being asked whether they would prefer a lump sum amount or continued access to discretionary help or a choice of either, whatever benefits them most financially.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance his Department has issued to healthcare professionals involved with children with mental health problems on whether they have a responsibility to inform parents that their child may be eligible for disability living allowance.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department of Health has not issued guidance to healthcare professionals on informing parents of their children’s eligibility for disability living allowance.

    The Department for Work and Pensions provides information on benefits, including Disability Living Allowance (DLA), in a range of formats at:

    www.gov.uk

    This includes information relating to DLA for children and includes links to benefit eligibility calculators that will signpost the user to further information about DLA for children.

    “

  • Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department’s tobacco control plan will include future innovations in nicotine delivery.

    Jane Ellison

    Supporting smokers to quit successfully is an important part of reducing the prevalence of smoking in England today. We know that a large number of smokers have and continue to use nicotine delivery devices to support their quit attempts.

    We will consult a range of stakeholders to consider how the use of these products fits with overall tobacco policy as we start to develop the new tobacco control plan.

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential effect of the Government’s proposals for community pharmacies on rural communities.

    Alistair Burt

    Community pharmacy is a vital part of the National Health Service and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

    The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.

    We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and others, including patient and public representatives, on our proposals for community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course. This will include the impact on rural communities.

  • Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Brown on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what range of compensation payments is planned to be available under the Government’s proposals for people who have been affected by contaminated blood who undertake individual health assessments.

    Jane Ellison

    The detail of the potential payment bands can only be decided when decisions on the shape and structure of the new scheme have been made following consultation. It is anticipated that there would likely be a number of broadly defined bands of ill health with different levels of annual payment attached to each. The greatest impact of infection on health would attract the highest annual payment. We intend that the highest payment would be £15,000 per annum. The payments are not compensation but ex-gratia. Under the current scheme those who receive annual payments receive £14,749.