Category: Speeches

  • Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Brown on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effect of gambling on vulnerable people; and what provisions are in place to assist people who have gambling problems.

    David Evennett

    One of the three key licensing objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005 is that vulnerable people should be protected from harm. All betting shop operators are required by the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Code of Practice (LCCP) to have policies and processes in place to meet this objective. In addition, the industry trade body, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB), has a mandatory code of conduct which places additional social responsibility requirements on all of its members.

    The rate of problem gambling is at 0.6% of the adult population, which is lower than comparable jurisdictions (USA, South Africa or Australia). However we recognise that rates are significantly higher among some sections of the population, such as young men, and that gambling-related harm is a real and significant problem. The majority of current provision for treatment of problem gamblers is through the Responsible Gambling Trust’s funding of organisations such as GamCare, who provide a helpline and counselling services, and the Gordon Moody Association, which provides specialist residential treatment. Local treatment can be found through GPs and NHS addiction clinics, there is also a specialist NHS service treating gambling disorder, based in London.

    The Government is committed to ensuring that people are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling. The Minister for Sport and Tourism has explained to the gambling industry that they are expected to demonstrate that they are improving existing player protection initiatives and evaluating the effects of previous initiatives. As the Minister said at the recent RGT harm minimisation conference, government and industry should never feel that there is an end point to social responsibility.

  • Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Maria Eagle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Maria Eagle on 2016-03-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on what date his Department plans to host a round table on ad blocking; who he plans to invite to that event; and what outcomes he expects from that event.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    There are currently plans to host a roundtable with representatives from all sides of the argument to discuss ad blocking in the coming weeks. Once we have heard their views, we will consider what role there is for Government.

  • Ruth Smeeth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Ruth Smeeth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Smeeth on 2016-04-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on whether any failure of IT systems on UK-based airlines has allowed any individual on her Department’s no fly list to travel in the last 12 months.

    James Brokenshire

    The Government works closely with all carriers, not just British registered carriers, to connect their systems to the Government’s border systems to ensure those connections are operating properly and to ensure that any IT problems are identified and resolved. Should any circumstance arise where a carrier should have refused authority to carry an individual to the UK, that individual will be met on arrival. Border Force also conducts 100% checks at passport control on all passengers arriving in the UK by commercial air, rail or maritime services at passport controls. This includes screening against watch lists.

  • Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Malcolm McDonald on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations his Department have received from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) on the list of addresses of British entities registered with the Mossack Fonseca law firm in Panama published by the ICIJ on their website on 9 May 2016.

    Mr David Gauke

    We welcome the statement from the source of the Panama Papers that they are willing to speak to law enforcement bodies. Tax evasion and money laundering are global issues, which is why the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and National Crime Agency (NCA) taskforce is working with international tax and law enforcement partners to take up this offer, and develop as many leads as possible from the data that is currently available.

    HMRC has been in regular contact with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), who have refused to share their full data with HMRC, stating that their policy is not to hand over such material. While we welcome the steps the ICIJ has taken in exposing this issue, its decision not to release the full set of information is disappointing.

    HMRC has begun analytical work on all the data published by the ICIJ, in addition to a wide range of other intelligence. As a result of this, the HMRC and NCA taskforce has opened a number of detailed and forensic enquiries.

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

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-07-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how long his Department estimates the Commissioning through Evaluation analysis phase will last for (a) selective dorsal rhizotomy, (b) patent foramen ovale closure, (c) left atrial appendage closure, (d) percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair, (e) selective internal radiation therapy and (f) stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

    David Mowat

    Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) is an innovative £25 million programme introduced by NHS England in 2013. It specifically aims to generate valuable new evaluation data in promising areas of specialised care where the current evidence base of cost and clinical effectiveness is insufficient to support routine National Health Service commissioning, and where further formal research trials are thought to be less likely.

    Each scheme – put forward by senior clinicians and other stakeholders – is funded on a time limited basis in a small number of selected centres, and then evaluated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

    Once the planned number of patients has been recruited across the participating centres, each scheme closes to new patients and analysis begins. This means that the funding identified for each scheme can then be reinvested into the evaluation of additional potentially life changing specialised treatments to maximise the value and impact of the overall evaluation fund for patients. As an example, routinely funding Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy contrary to the currently published clinical commissioning policy and in advance of a formal review of any new evidence would mean that between £2 million and £4 million per year (covering the surgical costs and immediate follow up only) would then be unavailable to support the evaluation of other promising treatments.

    The analysis phase for each CtE scheme will typically take between one and two years depending on how long we need to follow up patients after their treatment to identify its effectiveness. The three cardiology based CtE schemes are currently scheduled for a 15 month analysis and reporting phase, after which the data can be used by NHS England to support policy review.

    However, CtE is only one form of data that might be put forward in considering a new (or revision to an existing) policy and clinicians do not need to await the final report from CtE schemes if they feel that other new substantive data becomes available more quickly.

    NHS England’s published clinical commissioning policies (which set out eligibility for NHS funded specialised care on the basis of the available evidence) can be reviewed at any time where there is thought to be substantive new evidence available, and around 100 such proposals were developed and considered by NHS England during 2016/17.

    The policy development process is subject to both informal stakeholder testing and formal public consultation, including the opportunity for patients, clinicians and industry representatives to review and comment on the evidence base considered and the assessed impact on patients, existing services and cost.

    Where a new service is routinely commissioned as a result of a policy review, NHS England works with commissioned providers to ensure that sufficient clinical expertise and supporting infrastructure is in place to provide a safe service to patients in line with nationally set requirements.

  • Stephen Gethins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Stephen Gethins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Gethins on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, which EU Commissioners he has met since 23 June 2016; and when and where such meetings took place.

    David Mundell

    I spoke to Sir Julian King in August to discuss his nomination to the post of UK Commissioner to the European Commission (EC). Sir Julian was at the time the nominee for that post. He has since been confirmed as both the UK Commissioner to the EC and as the Commissioner for the Security Union.

  • Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-11-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what measures he plans to include in the forthcoming Order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to amend the legislation governing the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

    Ben Gummer

    The Section 60 Order will remove statutory midwifery supervision from the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC’s) governing legislation.

    The Department is also in discussions with the NMC on what other reforms may be achieved through the Order.

    The Order will be subject to a full public consultation early next year.

  • Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Patrick Grady – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patrick Grady on 2016-01-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department is taking to support the collection of data on the effect of sexual and gender-based violence on women in later life in developing countries.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    Supporting robust data collection on violence against women and girls and its effects is critical. However, international systems do not yet fully capture sufficient data for those over the age of 49. At UNGA the Secretary of State announced DFID’s role as an anchor partner of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. We are working with international bodies to support the development of rigorous, national data on violence against women and girls of all ages and its effect. One area we are looking at is whether the internationally recognised Demographic and Health Surveys can be expanded to women in later life.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-01-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the blog item on his Department’s website, entitled FCO – Abolition of the death penalty remains a high priority, published on 4 August 2015, which countries have caused concern by their increased use of the death penalty.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    The long-term trend is for the number of executions carried out and the number of states continuing to execute, to reduce each year. The Government’s hope and expectation is that this trend will continue. It is therefore a matter of concern when states which have refrained from executing for some years revert to use of the death penalty. One such country is Pakistan, which lifted its seven year moratorium on executions in 2014 following the attack on a school in Peshawar. Since then, Pakistan has executed an estimated 340 people. Our comprehensive list of countries of concern can be found in the 2014 Annual Human Rights Report, which includes our concerns with countries such as Saudi Arabia and their use of the death penalty. We continue to oppose its use in all forms, in all countries.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what her policy is on the threshold for the number of coasting academies in an academy chain above which her Department plans to take action.

    Edward Timpson

    An academy will be considered coasting where data shows that over a three year period it has failed to ensure that pupils reach their potential. An academy will only be coasting if performance data falls below the coasting bar in all three previous years. Therefore, no academy will be identified as coasting until after the 2016 performance data is published and there is 3 years of data available for 2014, 2015 and 2016.

    Regional Schools Commissioners will take action when any academy falls within the coasting definition and cannot demonstrate that it has a sufficient plan to improve rapidly without additional support.