Category: Speeches

  • 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.

  • Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Douglas Chapman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Chapman on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the (a) first and (b) last Hawk jet is scheduled to be delivered to Saudi Arabia; and how many (i) RAF personnel, (ii) RAF personnel seconded to BAE and (iii) BAE personnel will be involved in the Hawk jet training programme in that country.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The first two of 22 Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers ordered by the Royal Saudi Air Force in May 2012 were delivered to Saudi Arabia on 06 April 2016. The remaining aircraft are scheduled for delivery by mid-2017. The RSAF agreed to purchase a further 22 Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers in December 2015, but the arrangements for the delivery of these aircraft have yet to be finalised. There are 40 personnel contracted to BAE Systems providing Hawk flying training in Saudi Arabia, including one individual seconded from the RAF.

  • Ian Paisley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Ian Paisley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Paisley on 2016-05-18.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he plans to take to ensure that importers of soft drinks from outside the UK are subject to the soft drinks industry levy.

    Damian Hinds

    The levy will apply to importers of sugar-sweetened soft drinks and we will consult on the appropriate compliance arrangements.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight.

    Alistair Burt

    All follow-up appointments should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England’s guidance, “Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care” is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return.

    Hospital episode statistics contain details of all outpatient appointments at National Health Service hospitals in England and commissioned by the NHS from independent sector organisations in England. The recording of a primary diagnosis and postponed or cancelled appointments is not mandatory within the outpatient commissioning data set and there are no plans to make it so.

    Data is not, therefore, available on the number of cancelled or postponed follow up appointments for patients with age-related macular degeneration, central retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

    No assessment has been made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight. However, officials have met with the Clinical Council for Eye Health Commissioning and are considering their concerns.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much repairs to Type 45 ships will cost; and whether the cost will be borne out of existing funds or a new allocation.

    Harriett Baldwin

    To reveal our current estimates of the cost of this upgrade would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the Department. I can confirm, however, that funding for this improvement programme is to be contained within the budget allocated to Navy Command.

  • David Nuttall – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    David Nuttall – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answers of the 24 June 2015 to Questions 4118 and 4121 and the statement of the Minister for Europe of 10 November 2015, Official Report, column 239, in which he stated that ‘roughly like 40 per cent of the people from elsewhere in the EU who live in the UK are in receipt of benefits or tax credits of some sort,’ how this figure was calculated; how many EU citizens have been in the UK for less than four years; and of those people how many have made individual claims for tax credits.

    Priti Patel

    Details on how the proportion of EEA nationals who were in receipt of benefits or tax credits was calculated is detailed in the DWP ad hoc statistical publication “UK benefit and tax credit claims by recently arrived EEA migrants”. This can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-benefit-and-tax-credit-claims-by-recently-arrived-eea-migrants

    It was not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown within this ad hoc statistical publication on the claims made by individuals for different benefits or tax credits.

  • Luciana Berger – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to raise awareness of female genital mutilation among mental health professionals.

    Jane Ellison

    As part of its £3 million national Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Prevention Programme, the Department is developing staff training and awareness materials on FGM focusing on the mental health and wellbeing of FGM survivors.

    To increase health professionals’ awareness of this complex area, the Department has commissioned Health Education England to develop specialist FGM mental health e-learning, which will be provided free to all NHS professionals. Existing mental health training materials are also being updated by Health Education England to support awareness and recognition by health professionals of the impact of FGM on mental health.

    A ministerial roundtable with senior stakeholders was held on 29 October 2015 to discuss this issue. The Department is working with specialist mental health professionals and professional bodies to consider how best to support commissioners to ensure that mental health services are able to meet the needs of FGM survivors.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the recent deaths of Kurdish men and youths in Van and other parts of south-east Turkey since 1 January; and whether they have made representations to the government of Turkey about that matter.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The ongoing violence in the predominantly Kurdish areas of south east Turkey, including Van, is extremely concerning. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) continues to kill members of the Turkish police service and security forces in violent terrorist attacks. We believe Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself against the PKK, whose attacks we condemn as we condemn all terrorism. Our thoughts are with the victims of these attacks, and the civilians who have been caught up in the violence. We have been clear, in public and private, that PKK violence must end and we support a return to the peace process, in the interests of Turkey and the region. We stand ready to help in any way we can. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), and our Ambassador to Turkey have emphasised the need to respect human rights and the importance of avoiding civilian casualties to the Government of Turkey.

  • Norman Lamb – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Norman Lamb – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Norman Lamb on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25396, what communication Ministers of his Department have had with the Metropolitan Police Force and other forces which are not meeting service level agreement standards for the time taken to complete local disclosure checks.

    Alistair Burt

    My Ministerial colleagues and I have not had any communication with the Metropolitan Police and other forces on this matter. The Disclosure and Barring Service monitors the performance of all police disclosure units and works closely with any force, including the Metropolitan Police Service, not meeting its targets.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people of each (a) gender and (b) ethnicity were sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years.

    Alistair Burt

    The information requested is not available between 2010/11 and 2013/14 as comparable data was not collected during these years due to changes in the way the data was categorised and collected and variations in the number of organisations which reported in some years. Data for 2014/15 are provided in the table below.

    Number of detentions and short term orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 by gender and ethnic group: 2014/15

    Detentions

    Short-term orders

    Detentions and Orders

    41,592

    19,648

    Male

    22,016

    10,651

    Female

    19,566

    8,989

    White

    30,322

    14,954

    Mixed

    938

    444

    Asian or Asian British

    2,714

    924

    Black or Black British

    4,368

    1,438

    Other Ethnic Groups

    1,219

    531

    Source: Mental Health Minimum Data Set/Mental Health & Learning Disabilities Data Set 2014/15

    Notes:

    1. The numbers in this table represent the number of uses of the Mental Health Act 1983, not the number of individuals who were subject to the Act.
    2. Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS) is not the official data source for statistics about uses of the Mental Health Act 1983 but it is the only one that provides national information about gender and ethnic group. The MHMDS are known to under represent uses of the Mental Health Act 1983.
    3. The data source for official statistics about uses of the Mental Health Act 1983 is the KP90 collection, with figures published in the annual statistical release: Inpatients Formally Detained in Hospitals Under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Patients Subject to Supervised Community Treatment, England. Therefore, the data in the table may differ from data in the official published statistics.
    4. Counts by ethnicity and gender may not sum exactly to the overall total because for some people this information was invalid or not recorded.
    5. Detentions includes: detentions under Part ll, detentions under Part lll, detentions under previous legislation (Fifth Schedule) and other Acts, detentions subsequent to admission, detentions following use of a Place of Safety Order and detentions following revocation of a Community Treatment Order.
    6. Short-term orders are defined as those of no greater than 72 hours’ duration and involving uses of sections 4 and 5 and sections 135 and 136.