Category: Speeches

  • Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Vaz on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what measures are in place to regulate the prices of everyday drugs sold to the NHS by pharmaceutical companies.

    George Freeman

    There are arrangements in place to ensure that the prices paid by the National Health Service for medicines provide value for money for the NHS. The prices and the profits made on the sales of branded medicines to the NHS are controlled by the voluntary Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. If a company chooses not to join the voluntary scheme, it falls under a statutory scheme which controls the prices of branded medicines.

    The Department does not control the price of generic medicines; instead it relies on competition to drive down prices. A report in 2010 by the National Audit Office showed that the reimbursement arrangements had delivered savings for the NHS of £1.8 billion between 2005/6 and 2008/09.

    Concerns about possible anti-competitive behaviour by pharmaceutical companies are investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The Department and the CMA work closely together on such matters. The CMA is committed to investigating suspected infringements of competition law, including suspected excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical sector. The CMA has strong powers of investigation and, where it finds that a firm has breached competition law, it may impose penalties of up to 10% of a company’s worldwide turnover.

    The CMA has been asked by the Secretary of State to undertake further work to look into specific instances of excessive pricing.

  • Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine West on 2016-09-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) men, (b) women and (c) children have entered the UK under the refugee family reunion rules in each of the last three years.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The family reunion policy allows those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK to sponsor their pre-flight family members, i.e. spouse or partner and children under the age of 18, who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country, to reunite with them in the UK.

    Information on how many men, women and children have entered the UK under refugee family reunion provisions in the Immigration Rules is not captured in our published data and would require a manual review. This information cannot therefore be provided without exceeding proportionate costs.

  • Graham Allen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Graham Allen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Allen on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will estimate the annual cost to the public purse of extending free dental treatment to people under the age of 21.

    David Mowat

    The table below shows the estimated cost of extending exemption to National Health Service dental charges for paying patients under the age of 21, age 60 and over and for examinations only for patients aged 60 and over.

    Age Group

    Estimated Cost

    People aged 18-21

    £15.7 million

    People aged 60 and over

    £329.2 million

    People aged 60 and over (for check-ups only)

    £25.1 million

    This data is based on FP17s submitted to the NHS Business Services Authority for general dentistry courses of treatment completed between April 2015 and March 2016. It shows the amount of patient revenue, based on 2016/17 charge levels, which would be foregone should the currently fee paying groups be made exempt.

    Dentists are required to submit a form called an FP17 for every course of NHS dental treatment they provide. The figures assume no increase in the number of patients currently accessing NHS dental care, in reality additional patients may seek NHS treatment if they were to become exempt.

  • Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Roberts of Llandudno – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno on 2015-11-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government from which refugee camps the 1,000 refugees who are to be brought to the UK by Christmas are coming.

    Lord Bates

    UNHCR identifies and proposes Syrian refugees for the VPR scheme from among the whole of the registered refugee population in the region, from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt. This includes people in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities. This provides refugees with a more direct and safe route to the UK, rather than risking the hazardous journey to Europe which has tragically cost so many lives.

  • Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-12-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 3 December (HL Deb, col 1205), how much of the estimated £600 million additional partnership funding” has been received from private sources; and from which sources.”

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Six months into a six-year programme, £250 million has been secured. A further £350 million of potential contributions has been identified. Of the £250 million secured to date, £61 million comes directly from private sources.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Faulks on 10 December 2015 (HLWS380), whether they will continue to oppose common EU standards relating to online hate speech and insist that such a matter is for decision by the Member States.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Yes. This is a decision for individual member states.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Rotheram on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has made an assessment of (a) the number of potential closures of and (b) the reduction in community pharmacies as a result of proposed reductions in funding to such pharmacies.

    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.

    We are not able to assess which pharmacies may close because we do not know the financial viability of individual businesses or the extent to which they derive income from services commissioned locally by the NHS or local authorities or have non-NHS related income.

  • Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on 2016-03-01.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the Financial Conduct Authority’s oversight of anti-money-laundering regulations in the light of consumer complaints about enforced, unannounced and unexplained closures of bank accounts.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government encourages banks to take a risk based approach in its activities to ensure that measures they take are effective, proportionate and mitigate the risks that they face. In doing so the Government also encourages them to have due regard to financial inclusion.

    Whilst it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in these decisions, individuals are able to request a review of the decision to close their bank account using the bank’s formal complaint procedure and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many individual injunction cases the Planning Enforcement Fund helped finance in (a) 2014-15 and (b) 2015-16.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Department received six applications for enforcement grants before the deadline for submitting applications and all were successful.

    Two grants were made in the financial year 2014-15 to Staffordshire County Council (£8,010) and Stratford-on-Avon District Council (£3,200).

    Four grants were made in the financial year 2015-16 to Bath and North East Somerset Council (£7,993.75), London Borough of Camden (£8,184.50), Chelmsford City Council (£2,755) and South Gloucestershire Council (£3,291.66).

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) professionals, (b) nominated officers and (c) other nominated officers were prosecuted for failure to disclose under sections 330 to 332 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in each year since 2009-10.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government is committed to ensuring that the UK has a robust anti-money laundering regime. The National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing was published on 15 October 2015. This identified the threats and vulnerabilities we face in these areas, and the Action Plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance was published on 21 April 2016, setting out the steps that the Government will take to address them.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Sections 330 to 332, listed individually, from 2009/10 to the period between April and December 2014 (latest period available), can be viewed in the table below. It is not possible to determine the occupation of those convicted of these offences.

    Section of Act

    Outcome

    2009/10

    2010/11

    2011/12

    2012/13

    2013/14

    April to December 2014

    330

    Proceeded against

    –

    5

    2

    2

    4

    1

    Found guilty

    –

    4

    1

    1

    8

    1

    331

    Proceeded against

    –

    –

    –

    –

    2

    –

    Found guilty

    –

    –

    1

    –

    1

    –

    332

    Proceeded against

    –

    –

    –

    –

    –

    –

    Found guilty

    –

    –

    –

    1

    –

    –

    “