Tag: Jim Shannon

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information his Department holds on how many people have experienced adverse health effects as a result of using the drug ruxolitinib.

    George Freeman

    Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are collected by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Commission for Human Medicines through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme. The Yellow Card Scheme collects information relating to suspected adverse drug reactions, which include both serious and non-serious effects which a health care professional or patient suspect may have been due to a medicine.

    The MHRA has received a total of 74 United Kingdom spontaneous suspected ADR reports in association with ruxolitinib up to and including 10 February 2015. This number includes reports received directly from healthcare professionals, patients and indirectly through pharmaceutical companies which have a legal obligation to report suspected ADRs.

    The inclusion of a particular ADR in a report does not necessarily mean it has been caused by the drug, only that the reporter had a suspicion it may have, or it had a close temporal relationship to the administration of the suspect drug. The fact that symptoms occur after a treatment does not necessarily mean that they have been caused by the drug itself, as underlying illnesses and other conditions may be responsible.

    In 2013, the product information for ruxolitinib was updated to warn healthcare professionals that cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) have been reported with ruxolitinib and to recommend that patients are monitored at regular intervals for any new or worsening neurological symptoms or signs. The Market Authorisation Holder is currently conducting studies to investigate the risk of PML further. The benefits of ruxolitinib to adult patients with myelofibrosis who have an enlarged spleen or symptoms related to the disease are considered to outweigh the risks.

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

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy that internal defibrillators be available on the NHS.

    Jane Ellison

    Implantable cardioverter defibrillators – internal defibrillators – are already available on the National Health Service.

    The decision about whether to implant a defibrillator into a patient is a clinical one which we would expect to take account of any relevant guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with his Egyptian counterpart on training and capacity building in the Egyptian army.

    Dr Andrew Murrison

    The Secretary of State for Defence has not had any discussions with his Egyptian counterpart on training and capacity building in the Egyptian army.

    As part of wider UK defence engagement Ministry of Defence officials regularly discuss the potential for further engagement with a number of countries and may from time to time provide training as required and in accordance with wider Government policy.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to increase the sentences available in cases of the cyber-bullying of students.

    Mike Penning

    The sending of abusive messages or material online can cause misery for victims and is an issue the Government takes extremely seriously.

    That is why we are changing the law through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act to increase the maximum sentence to two years in prison for the offence of sending abusive or offensive material online with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

    We are also changing the law to enable prosecutions to take place three years after the alleged offence, rather than six months.

    There are a number of other serious penalties available in cases of cyber bullying of students.

    Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the offences of harassment causing alarm or distress or putting people in fear of violence carry a maximum of six months and five years imprisonment respectively.

    There is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending material which is indecent, grossly offensive, obscene or menacing. It carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

    In addition, guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council stipulate that it is an aggravating factor if an offence is committed against a vulnerable victim or involves abuse of a position of power. Sentencing guidelines can be found on the Sentencing Council’s website, and courts are obliged to follow the guidelines unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if he will discuss (a) solar energy and (b) other alternative energies with his Egyptian counterpart.

    Gregory Barker

    The UK Government engages with Egypt on a series of renewable technologies, including solar, through multilateral forms such at the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). We also provide some technical assistance, through the World Bank, to help Egypt diversify their energy sources.

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

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-07-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent steps he has taken in response to the discovery of horsemeat in other foods in 2013 to improve co-operation between Government departments on public health issues.

    Jane Ellison

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) continues to develop its capability in relation to food fraud, in response to recommendations made in the reviews of the horsemeat incident, working closely with other Government Departments, enforcement agencies, local authorities and industry to detect and deter food fraud. The FSA is building an intelligence gathering network to increase the opportunity to capture and act on intelligence which may be indicative of future risks, as well as producing strategic and tactical assessments to share with relevant enforcement agencies, particularly through the Government Agency Intelligence Network.

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He brings much knowledge to the debate and I thank him for sharing that with us.

    I welcome the Bill and I declare an interest, as I must, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer in Northern Ireland. The Bill will bring great benefits, not just to England but to the whole United Kingdom. In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which I will touch on later. I welcome the Minister’s response.

    I live among farmers, who are incredible people. They love their animals and the job they do. They are very efficient. Near me, they have high-quality dairy herds, beef cattle, lamb, pork and poultry. My farmers want the best, and that is what I want for Northern Ireland. It is no secret that Northern Ireland’s high-quality produce is some of the best in the world and is much envied. Northern Ireland leads the way, but we want to be part of the Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, however, does not enable us to do the same as the farmers here.

    As the Member for Strangford, a strong agricultural constituency, legislation to unlock new technologies to boost food production, support farmers and grow more productive crops is certainly of great interest to me and those I represent—my neighbours across Strangford and across Northern Ireland. As always, one of my first ports of call was to see what the farmers thought about it. They were clear and quickly explained to me that gene editing is different from GM and gives us an opportunity to be more efficient and farm better. It does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes. It will potentially provide a greater yield and better farming practices.

    Crucially, precision breeding technologies will help to develop foods with direct benefits to the public, such as products of better quality, increased nutritional value and a longer shelf life. Those are things that we are all striving for and we should all try to make those ambitions happen, so the technology can only be a good thing as long as it is safe and has farmer buy-in. From my discussions with farmers, it clearly has that buy-in.

    We must be realistic and say that farmers have been gene editing for generations but did not have a fancy name for it; they knew it as splicing. I am old enough to remember my grandmother splicing the peas and beans to make bigger and better varieties of peas and beans. That goes back to the ’60s—it was not yesterday—but even in those early days, perhaps my grandmother was a bit of a pioneer in doing such things. Today we do not call it splicing but genetic technology. That is a much fancier name, and much greater, because it is about more than that, which is why the Bill is important. Through trial and error, science has allowed us to go to the next level, yet we must be mindful of the difficulties that can come by decimating the wonderful structure of nature that God has put in place. I believe that the Bill provides safety and security, and a way forward to UK food security.

    A fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to meet a constituent, Stephen Alexander, who keeps 130 Dexter cattle—an almost-unique herd across Northern Ireland. He takes 60 acres of land at Orlock in North Down, he has some land at home in Greyabbey, and he takes other land just down the road. He made a deal with the National Trust, which was that he would not use fertilisers or bring anything new on to the land—it all had to be natural; the grass was natural—which was quite unique. Along with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Edwin Poots and others, I had a chance to see how that works. It does work: it is an organic farm in every sense of the word, yet all the cattle are exceptional.

    That is another reason why it is essential to bring in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a matter of urgency. As Edwin Poots outlined:

    “The introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in England will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Protocol requires alignment to EU rules so gene-edited crops developed in England under the Bill”—

    that we could take advantage of in Northern Ireland—

    “would not be available for cultivation in Northern Ireland.”

    We need parity of opportunity and of legislation. When the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill returns to this House from the other place, we need to see that we will have that opportunity.

    The fact is that for any British gene-edited crops we would have to apply to the European Food Safety Authority for approval before they could be sent to Northern Ireland, which imports, among other things, grain for animal feed. Even then, the crops could still be banned by Dublin, and that is what this really is: the EU and Dublin, with their hand—their dead hand—upon us on many occasions. That would present a fresh headache in ensuring the affected plants did not cross that invisible Irish border.

    It is clear that while this Bill is a stand-alone one, the fingerprints of European intransigence are all over it. I again make the point that it is not this Bill, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, whenever it comes back, that will give us in Northern Ireland the same chance as the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I would ask the House and the Government to reinstate their support for us whenever the Bill, which I think is going through the other place tomorrow, comes back to us.

    As someone who loves the land and always supports the farmers, I trust those who have farmed for generations when they say that this is an enhanced version of splicing and that there is a need to be open to all possibilities. I say the Bill is the right way to go to ensure that the facility is there and so suits the farmers and food producers, and allows Northern Ireland to play a crucial and important role to advance our markets across the world. It will also ensure that we can grow and provide more jobs and a stronger economy, and that we can determine this for ourselves, rather than have the unelected EU, with no Northern Ireland voices, dictating our food security and farming practices.

    That is my bid for the Minister about what has been brought here tonight. I really do support this, and I think it is the right thing to do. I will say in advance that amendment 4—perhaps the Minister can clarify this for me at the end, if possible—while it has been put forward by the Labour Opposition, has I believe been done in the best possible sense. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), was going to put forward something similar, and we were apt to support that. So if the Opposition move amendment 4, which would ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account animal welfare in relation to Northern Ireland, that is the one on which we will probably disagree with the Minister, unless clarification can be given to us. However, on everything else, I fully support the Minister and the Government as they bring this Bill forward.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate he has made of the value to the economy of venison production and sales in each of the last three years; and what steps he is taking to increase production and sale of venison.

    George Eustice

    The available data on the UK deer farming industry in each of the last three years is shown in the table below :-

    UK Farmed Deer Industry

    2011

    2012

    2013

    Value of output of deer (£ million)

    3.5

    3.5

    3.6

    Volume of venison produced (tonnes)

    2,400

    2,400

    2,500

    Farmed deer populations (thousand head)

    33

    31

    32

    Defra co-funded a research project in partnership with industry to determine the effects of packaging and slaughter conditions on venison meat quality, and gain an improved understanding of consumer perceptions of venison to help focus future venison marketing campaigns. More information can be found here:

    http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=13973

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to reduce the number of black-backed gulls.

    George Eustice

    Defra is not taking action to reduce the number of lesser or great black-backed gulls. Like all wild birds, gulls are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under this Act it is an offence to kill or injure any wild bird; to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; and take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

    However, Natural England has issued general licences for gulls which allow users to kill or take lesser black-backed gulls, to take, damage or destroy their nests or take or destroy their eggs, for a range of purposes. These include protection against damage to livestock or crops, or where the gulls are posing a risk to public health and safety. General licences need not be applied for by users, as long as they meet the conditions of the licence.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people having difficulty making mortgage repayments have requested help from the Financial Ombudsman Service in each of the last three years.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government does not collect data on the number of cases referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS routinely collects and publishes statistics about the complaints referred to them, which they make publicly available on their website.