UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Jim Fitzpatrick

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current tools available to enforcement officers to take swift action in tackling food fraud.

    Jane Ellison

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) works with local authority enforcement officers to ensure that food law is applied across the entire food chain. Direction and guidance on the approach that local authority food law regulatory services should take is given in the statutory Food Law Code of Practice (the Code). The FSA regularly assesses the effectiveness of tools available to these enforcement officers through undertaking audit of local authorities’ enforcement services, reviewing the Code and ensuring lessons are learnt from major incidents.

    The Code sets out instructions and criteria to which the authorities must have regard and is periodically reviewed to ensure that it reflects current enforcement practices and supports local authorities’ delivery of their official control obligations and that enforcement is consistent, effective and proportionate.

    The FSA provides specific tools to support local authorities with investigations relating to potential food fraud. The FSA operates the Food Fraud Database, which utilises specialist intelligence management software to record intelligence reports and identify links, and uses this to assist local investigations. The FSA also provides local authorities with financial support through its Fighting Fund, expert advice through its Food Fraud Advisory Unit and holds dedicated training courses for enforcement officers.

    In addition, the FSA is building an enhanced intelligence gathering network to increase the opportunity to capture and act on intelligence which may be indicative of future risks relating to food fraud, as well as producing strategic and tactical assessments to share with relevant enforcement agencies.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect on the (a) numbers of GP practices and (b) services offered by GP practices of removing performance indicators from the Quality Outcomes Framework.

    Jane Ellison

    We have reduced the number of indicators in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) by more than a third. This is intended to free up time for general practitioners (GPs) to provide more personalised care which includes the new responsibility of providing a named GP for all of their patients aged 75 and over. The money released from the QOF will be reinvested in general practice.

    We understand that NHS England is currently developing the specifications and reporting protocols that will be required to capture the information provided by the retired QOF indicators.

    This will enable NHS England’s commissioning teams, clinical commissioning groups and the Care Quality Commission to take this information into account in reaching rounded judgements about the quality of care provided by general practice. It will also be used to evaluate the impact of the indicators that were retired on 1 April 2014, and will inform future decisions about the development of QOF.

    NHS England has recently undertaken an analysis to identify ‘outlier’ practices – those that will lose the largest amount of funding per patient as a result of the phasing out of the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee. Details of these practices have been sent to NHS England area teams.

    In a small number of cases where there are exceptional underlying factors that necessitate additional funding – for example because a practice is serving an atypical population – it is anticipated that area teams will meet with the practices to discuss and agree arrangements to ensure that appropriate services for patients continue to be available.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to strengthen food surveillance and the analytical capability of local authorities to pre-empt potential food fraud in the last 12 months.

    Jane Ellison

    The main role for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in combatting food fraud is to provide assistance and resources to United Kingdom local authorities (LAs) food fraud related investigations through the provision of financial support, expert advice and training. The FSA continues to develop its capability in relation to food fraud, working closely with other Government Departments, LAs and industry to detect and deter food fraud.

    The FSA provides additional funding on an annual basis to UK Enforcement Authorities for sampling and surveillance of food to help ensure risk-based targeted checks at ports and inland. Food authenticity and food adulteration issues have been prioritised in consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department of Health.

    In 2013-14, the FSA made available £1.6 million to LAs and ports plus an additional £700,000 specifically for authenticity issues including: meat speciation and fish speciation by DNA testing; added water in chicken; authenticity of durum wheat; and authenticity of basmati rice.

    Over the last 12 months, FSA and DEFRA have worked with the Authenticity Steering Group to address and prioritise analytical method development for the Food Authenticity Research Programme. Current activities include knowledge transfer sessions, which have been joint-funded by FSA and DEFRA, to enhance the range of analytical methods available to support LA enforcement activity. For example, a knowledge transfer event took place for Public Analysts on DNA extraction processes in early 2014 with a further two planned for later this year.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment has been made of the effects of the removal of the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee on (a) GP services and (b) the income of GPs; and if he will commission research on the range and extent on GP income in Tower Hamlets.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    As part of the general practitioner (GP) contract settlement in 2013, the Department decided to phase out Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG) top up payments over a seven year period, starting in the coming financial year 2014-15. This means that MPIG payments to practices will be reduced by one-seventh every year from 1 April 2014.

    The money released by doing this will be reinvested in the basic payments made to all General Medical Services practices, which are based on numbers of patients and key determinants of practice workload, such as patient age, health needs and the unavoidable costs of providing services in rural areas. The decision to implement the changes over a period of seven years is designed to allow those practices that will lose funding to adjust gradually.

    GPs are independent contractors and are responsible for deciding their own levels of income. The decision on how to address specific local issues will be taken by NHS England’s area teams after a full assessment of local circumstances. We understand that NHS England’s primary care team in London is in regular contact with the Chief Officer of Tower Hamlets clinical commissioning group about this issue.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many local authorities have not conducted any sampling to check food composition over the last 12 months.

    Jane Ellison

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) collects food law enforcement monitoring returns from local authorities annually. Data for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 is currently being collected. Following collation and analysis, the FSA plans to publish this data in November 2014.

    The FSA advises that the following local authorities did not report any food composition sampling in 2012-13 via the Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring System (LAEMS):

    Armagh

    Birmingham

    Blackburn

    Bolton

    Darlington

    Isle of Wight

    Leicester City

    Plymouth City

    Redcar and Cleveland

    Rochdale

    Rutland

    South Lanarkshire

    Swindon

    Tameside

    All of these authorities reported taking other labelling or microbiological samples in 2012-13.

    A table has been placed in the Library which shows how many food standards samples (composition and labelling) each local authority reported via LAEMS in 2012-13, together with a comparison against the number reported in 2011-12 and how many food standards samples each local authority reported through a FSA-funded project.

    All of the reported food standards samples were official samples and would have been submitted to the local authority’s appointed Public Analyst for analysis. Out of 22,055 food standards samples in 2012-13, 4,387 were funded by the FSA, all other food standards samples would have been paid for by the local authority. By comparison, in 2011-12, the FSA funded 5,072 out of 21,970 food standards samples.

    For some local authorities, the FSA funded sampling figure is larger than the number included in the LAEMS report. The difference will be due to the LAEMS reports only including samples for which the analytical result was received from the Public Analyst before 31 March 2013.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what meetings he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding the tolling of proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how that will impact on traffic levels at the Dartford Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against and (c) convicted of an offence under the provisions of the (i) Game Act 1831, (ii) Deer Act 1991, (iii) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (iv) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (v) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, (vi) Animal Welfare Act 2006, (vii) Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (viii) Hunting Act 2004, (ix) Night Poaching Act 1828, (x) Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, (xi) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, (xii) Pests Act 1954 and (xiii) Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in each year since 2009.

    Mike Penning

    The number of offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts for offences (all in England and Wales from 2009 to 2013) under the Game Act 1831 can be viewed in Table 1, under the Deer Act 1991 in Table 2, under the Protection of Badgers act 1992 in Table 3, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Table 4, under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Table 5, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in Table 6, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in Table 7, under the Night Poaching Act 1828 in Table 8, under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 in Table 9, under the Hunting Act 2004 in Table 10 and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in Table 11. The tables can be found in the Library. Data for the Pests Act 1954, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is held as part of a miscellaneous group that cannot be separately analysed.We are very clear that serious offences will always go to court where tough punishments are available to the independent judiciary, who make their sentencing decisions based on the individual facts of the case.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what meetings he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how they impact on the options for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what written correspondence he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding the tolling of proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how that will impact on traffic levels at the Dartford Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what written correspondence he has had with (a) the Mayor of London and (b) officials from Transport for London within the last 24 months regarding proposed river crossings east of Tower Bridge that are included within the Mayoral Transport Strategy; and how they impact on the options for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which a range of London transport measures are discussed. Other Ministers also discuss various London transport issues and projects with senior officials from Transport for London.

    The Mayor of London wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport on 1 June 2012 to request the designation of the proposed Silvertown tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Secretary of State responded on 26 June 2012 outlining her agreement to grant the request.

    On 16 July 2013, the Mayor of London wrote to me to respond to the Department’s consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing proposals.

    The Department’s review of options for a new Lower Thames Crossing included a sensitivity test to assess whether the proposed Silvertown Crossing scheme would be likely to impact on the forecast flows for the existing Dartford crossing, and any potential new crossing.　The conclusion of that test was that the effect was likely to be negligible. The review findings were published in May 2013 as part of consultation on the options.