Category: Speeches

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-02-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies on the use of the Mental Health Act 1983 are of the Care Quality Commission’s sixth annual report, HC483, published on 14 October 2015.

    Alistair Burt

    The Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, which came into force in April 2015, provides statutory guidance on how functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act) should be carried out. All providers of mental health services under the Act have a duty to abide by both the provisions of the Act and the detailed guidance on how implement those provisions contained in the Code of Practice. That includes the duty of all such mental health providers to ensure their staff know and understand their responsibilities under the Act.

    Empowerment and the involvement of patients are key principles underpinning the Act, and the Code of Practice is clear that detained patients must be informed of their rights; that it is the responsibility of those treating them to ensure that patients understand their rights; and that patients are aware that they are entitled to ask for the assistance of an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) to help them understand this information.

    The Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) annual report Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2014/15 indicates that CQC have already taken action where providers are failing to effectively monitor the Act, train staff and support patients and recommends that services use the findings of that report to make sure staff have the right skills and knowledge and decide what action needs to be taken to improve the care and support available for patients.

  • Margaret Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Margaret Greenwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Greenwood on 2016-03-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what formula his Department used to allocated funding to local authorities from the transitional grant of £150 million per year for two years to mitigate the effects of reductions in revenue support grant.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    I refer the hon. member to the response I gave to the hon. member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on the 22 February, PQ 26616.

  • Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine West on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance his Department issues on what evidence should be used to determine basic treatment for people presenting with acute urinary tract infections.

    Jane Ellison

    The Department does not determine which treatments should be available for what ailments. National Health Service commissioners are responsible for making decisions on individual treatments on the basis of the available evidence, taking into account guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) where available.

    NICE guidance is always evidence based, assuring us of the latest clinical thinking and research to determine the best treatment for patients.

    The guidelines from NICE for urinary tract infections can be found here:

    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg171/chapter/1-recommendations

    NHS England published new guidance on 16 November 2015 to help improve the care and experience of people with continence issues. This includes the most up to date evidence to support commissioners and providers. The guidance can be found on NHS England’s website and accessed via the following link:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/2015/11/16/continence-care/

    “

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-05-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, by what means she will assess the risk to bee populations when considering emergency applications for the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on crops.

    George Eustice

    Emergency authorisation is a procedure set out in law which allows for the authorisation of a pesticide product for a period not exceeding 120 days, for “limited and controlled use, where such a measure appears necessary because of a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means”.

    All applications for emergency authorisation in the UK, including those for neonicotinoids, are decided according to these criteria following an expert assessment of the scientific data.

  • Baroness Hollins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Baroness Hollins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hollins on 2016-06-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 16 June (HL576), whether the trial of Mazher Mahmood is among those cases she refers to as connected to the subject of the Leveson Inquiry and which must conclude before they will consider Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry, and which other criminal proceedings are also in that category.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    There are a number of on-going cases captured by the Leveson criteria, which were laid down to avoid the risk of prejudice to the right to fair trials in the criminal courts. The trial of Mazher Mahmood is one of these.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-09-08.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many officials of his Department provide secretariat support to unpaid advisors.

    Ben Gummer

    There are no unpaid special advisers in the Cabinet Office.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Andrew Rosindell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to help prevent people migrating illegally from Haiti to the Turks & Caicos islands.

    James Duddridge

    Through the Conflict, Security and Stability Fund the Ministry of Defence has delivered maritime training to the Turks and Caicos Islands to build maritime police capacity as well as to facilitate their participation in Exercise TRADEWINDS 16, an annual regional exercise sponsored by the United States. This will enable Turks and Caicos Islands maritime police to work and train in partnership with the Royal Bahamian Defence Force and the United States Coastguard, to develop mutual capacity, relations and integration to help deter and detect irregular migration. Her Majesty’s Government has also funded an Immigration Adviser between September 2013 and March 2015 to help build Turks and Caicos Island’s capacity to deal with the full range of migration challenges.

    Our Embassy in Haiti continues to press the Haitian government to finalise a Memorandum of Understanding to establish agreed arrangements for repatriations and better communication on migration issues. In parallel, our Embassy in Haiti will be taking forward work on a public diplomacy campaign in Northern Haiti to highlight the dangers and risks of attempting the dangerous sea crossing.

  • Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Brendan MacNeil on 2015-12-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether the feed-in tariff scheme will be paused in January 2015; and if she will make a statement.

    Andrea Leadsom

    We will be publishing the Government response to the review of the feed-in tariff as soon as possible detailing the changes we will make to the scheme.

  • Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ian Austin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2016-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will meet with the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner to discuss banning the sale of zombie knives.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government continues to work with the police and partners to ensure we reduce violence and knife crime, and in the year ending June 2015, knife crime recorded by the police was 17% lower than 2010. We are aware of concerns about zombie knives and we are currently considering representations including the letter of 13 January from the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for the West Midlands and on 21 January from the prospective mayoral candidate for London Zac Goldsmith. A reply will be sent shortly and we will offer to meet with the PCC.

    We are currently considering what action to take against the prevalence of zombie knives on our streets. We are talking to retailers, including Amazon, about the action they can take. There are strict laws on the sale of knives to under 18s and on how knives can be marketed. We are concerned about any knives being carried in public especially if used to threaten and inflict violence. It is a criminal offence to possess a knife in public without good reason, and if a person is convicted a second time they now face a minimum mandatory custodial sentence following the introduction of this change by the Government in July 2015.

  • Vernon Coaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Vernon Coaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Vernon Coaker on 2016-02-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if she will make an assessment of the effect of the application of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the payment of compensation relating to cases in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or, in relation to most criminal offences in Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice, to pay compensation where a person’s conviction for a criminal offence has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the grounds that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The amount of compensation awarded in these cases is assessed by an independent assessor.

    Section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 inserted subsection (1ZA) into section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, providing a statutory definition of “miscarriage of justice”. In accordance with this new provision, the Secretary of State will only pay compensation for a “miscarriage of justice” where the new or newly discovered fact (on the basis of which the conviction was reversed) shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence of which they were convicted. In Northern Ireland this new definition applies in relation to applications for compensation in cases involving sensitive national security information, which applications are determined by the Secretary of State rather than the Northern Ireland Department of Justice.

    I believe that this clear definition enshrined in statute makes decisions on eligibility more transparent and less likely to be the subject of legal challenge and ensures (in those cases in Northern Ireland to which it applies) that compensation will only be paid where it is clear the person did not commit the offence of which they were convicted.