Tag: Barry Sheerman

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the proposed Hinkley nuclear power station operates in a safe and environmentally friendly way.

Andrea Leadsom

The proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has successfully completed Generic Design Assessment of the proposed reactor design, the EPR. The independent nuclear regulators, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency, have also granted the project a site licence and environmental permits. The regulators would continue to ensure robust safety, security and environmental standards at Hinkley Point C, as at all the UK’s nuclear installations, through construction, operation and decommissioning.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

Through the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism (GRM) over 95,000 people have now been able to buy materials to repair homes that were damaged during the conflict. However, we are concerned that none of the homes destroyed have been rebuilt yet. We therefore welcome the June 2015 agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinian authorities on the Residential Stream of the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism to support the reconstruction of homes that were completely destroyed. DFID is providing £700,000 to the Materials Monitoring Unit which monitors the import, storage, supply and use of construction materials into Gaza under the GRM. The UK is also calling on all donors to disburse pledges made at the October 2014 Cairo Gaza Reconstruction Conference without delay.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what cost benefit assessment his Department has made of a policy of providing Group B strep tests to new-born babies on the NHS.

Ben Gummer

Routine testing of babies for Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection is not recommended. Therefore, no cost benefit assessment has been made by the Department on providing GBS tests to newborn babies.

A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified 41 items of correspondence received since 1 January 2015 on GBS. This correspondence relates mainly to offering testing for GBS carriage in pregnancy.

If a woman has previously had a baby with GBS, her maternity team will either monitor the health of her newborn baby closely for at least 12 hours after birth, or treat them with antibiotics until blood tests confirm whether or not GBS is present. The Department’s policy is not to offer antenatal screening for GBS carriage. This is based on advice from the UK National Screening Committee the body responsible for advising Ministers and the National Health Service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy, and their advice is because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to be gained from screening would outweigh the harms.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent representations he has received on the provision of Group B strep tests for new-born babies.

Ben Gummer

Routine testing of babies for Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection is not recommended. Therefore, no cost benefit assessment has been made by the Department on providing GBS tests to newborn babies.

A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified 41 items of correspondence received since 1 January 2015 on GBS. This correspondence relates mainly to offering testing for GBS carriage in pregnancy.

If a woman has previously had a baby with GBS, her maternity team will either monitor the health of her newborn baby closely for at least 12 hours after birth, or treat them with antibiotics until blood tests confirm whether or not GBS is present. The Department’s policy is not to offer antenatal screening for GBS carriage. This is based on advice from the UK National Screening Committee the body responsible for advising Ministers and the National Health Service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy, and their advice is because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to be gained from screening would outweigh the harms.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his policy is on providing Group B strep tests for new-born babies.

Ben Gummer

Routine testing of babies for Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection is not recommended. Therefore, no cost benefit assessment has been made by the Department on providing GBS tests to newborn babies.

A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified 41 items of correspondence received since 1 January 2015 on GBS. This correspondence relates mainly to offering testing for GBS carriage in pregnancy.

If a woman has previously had a baby with GBS, her maternity team will either monitor the health of her newborn baby closely for at least 12 hours after birth, or treat them with antibiotics until blood tests confirm whether or not GBS is present. The Department’s policy is not to offer antenatal screening for GBS carriage. This is based on advice from the UK National Screening Committee the body responsible for advising Ministers and the National Health Service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy, and their advice is because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to be gained from screening would outweigh the harms.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure that (a) his Department and (b) the NHS gives mental health parity of esteem with physical health.

Alistair Burt

We continue to take mental health as seriously as physical health and to hold the National Health Service to account for achieving the objectives set out in the NHS Mandate, ensuring that mental and physical health conditions are given equal priority. The Mandate makes clear that ‘everyone who needs it should have timely access to evidence-based services’.

We have legislated for parity of esteem between mental and physical health via the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

We have already expanded our world-leading psychological therapy services and we have invested over £120 million in order to introduce for the first time waiting times standards for mental health services from April 2015 – a very significant milestone on the road to parity. Next year we will invest £15 million into improving the provision of places of safety, in order to ensure that people in crisis receive assessments in appropriate premises, and not in police custody.

We have made clear that each clinical commissioning group’s (CCG) spending on Mental Health should increase in real terms.

NHS England’s published planning guidance for 2015/16 for commissioners made the expectation clear that each CCGs spend on mental health services in 2015/16 should increase in real terms, and grow by at least the same percentage as each CCG’s allocation increase.

We will monitor this closely to ensure this happens.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what comparative assessment he has made of uptake and use by the NHS of new treatments for people living with diabetes with health systems in other EU countries.

Jane Ellison

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) report International Comparison of Medicines Usage: Quantitative Analysis, published last year, showed that uptake of newer and more expensive drugs to treat diabetes was lower than comparator countries. However, uptake of more established therapies was considerably higher.

It is important to note that high use of drugs does not mean more people are cured. There are a number of legitimate factors which influence usage, and therefore variation, such as populations with differing health needs. The Research and Development (RAND) Europe report International variation in drugs usage: an exploratory analysis, published at the same time as the OHE report – seeks to define some of these factors and can be found at the link below:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR899/RAND_RR899.pdf

Our focus is on tackling unjustified variation where it exists.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to which countries UK weapons manufacturers are prohibited from selling arms.

Anna Soubry

The Government publish on GOV.UK, on a country by country basis, details of sanctions regimes, arms embargoes and restrictions on the export of strategic goods currently implemented by the UK.

Arms embargoes ban the export of ‘arms and related material’. This covers military ammunition, weapons and goods. They may be imposed by a number of organisations, including the UN, the EU or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. They may also be imposed at national level.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what his policy is on the sale of arms manufactured by UK companies to governments which have committed human rights abuses.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

This Government supports a responsible defence and security industry that helps meet the legitimate defence needs of other states, and contributes to their security and law and order. We take our arms export responsibilities very seriously and we operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world. All defence and dual-use exports are required to meet the UK’s strict export control legislation and adhere to the UK international commitments including international treaties and obligations. Each application for an export licence is subject to rigorous case-by-case assessment against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. Risks around human rights violations are a key part of our assessment.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps she is taking to assist disadvantaged children by the provision of free school meals.

Mr Sam Gyimah

The government recognises the benefits of providing a healthy school meal to the most disadvantaged children. Children in England who receive, or whose parents receive, specified benefits[1] are entitled to receive free school meals. Free meals were also extended to disadvantaged students in further education institutions from September 2014.

Since 1 September 2014, state-funded schools in England have been required by law to provide free lunches to all pupils in reception, year one or year two.

The provision of universal infant free school meals was a commitment in the Conservative Party Manifesto.

[1] Income Support (IS); Income Based Jobseekers Allowance (IBJSA); an income-related employment and support allowance; support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; Child Tax Credit (provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit) with an annual income, as assessed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), that does not exceed £16,190; the guarantee element of State Pension Credit; or Universal Credit. Where a parent is entitled to Working Tax Credit run-on – the payment someone receives for a further four weeks after they stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit -their children are entitled to free school meals.