Tag: Kate Hoey

  • Kate Hoey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions took place at his most recent meeting with the European Health Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis; whether he discussed (a) the likely timelines for the future setting of maximum permitted levels for nutrients under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive and (b) the potential extension of the scope of that Directive to include supplements containing ingredients of plant, fish and animal origin at that meeting; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    No discussions have yet taken place with Commissioner Andriukaitis. The new European Commission has not announced any renewed plans to implement Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive and the Government has not recently made an assessment of potential effects of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals, either on consumer choice, or on British businesses. Our advice to United Kingdom manufacturers on safe daily dose levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements is based on the report of the UK’s Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. The industry has supported the use of these levels and the report is also used by some other member states as advice for safe upper levels.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-07-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to engage with the public about (a) care.data and (b) ways of opting-out of care.data before data is collected.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    NHS England is currently listening to the views of patients, the general public, general practitioners (GPs) and stakeholders on how best to further build trust and confidence in the care.data programme. Local stakeholders, including GPs, patients, the general public and health and care representatives, are taking part in debates and workshops to air their views.

    There will be a phased approach to implementation. NHS England intends to work with a number of GP practices, ‘pathfinders’, in the autumn to test, evaluate and refine all aspects of the data collection process ahead of national roll-out. This will include consideration of ways of objecting “opting out” to being included in the care.data programme.

    A care.data advisory group has been established to support the programme and that group will also be involved in shaping the pathfinder stage. Ciaran Devane, Chief Executive of Macmillan Cancer Support and a non-executive director of NHS England, has agreed to chair the group.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who took the decision not to announce the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in respect of members of the IRA in the London Gazette or the Belfast Gazette.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    There have been no instances in which the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) has been issued in respect of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland since the current Government came to power in May 2010.

    I am not aware of any legal requirement to publish in the media information relating to the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM). In England and Wales, RPMs signed by HM the Queen, on the advice of the Secretary of State, are then passed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for sealing, who by convention subsequently places the notice in the London Gazette. By convention in Northern Ireland, RPMs signed by HM the Queen are not subsequently placed in the Belfast Gazette.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for what reasons the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy granted in respect of members of the IRA was not announced in the London Gazette or the Belfast Gazette.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    There have been no instances in which the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) has been issued in respect of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland since the current Government came to power in May 2010.

    I am not aware of any legal requirement to publish in the media information relating to the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM). In England and Wales, RPMs signed by HM the Queen, on the advice of the Secretary of State, are then passed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for sealing, who by convention subsequently places the notice in the London Gazette. By convention in Northern Ireland, RPMs signed by HM the Queen are not subsequently placed in the Belfast Gazette.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-03-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what progress has been made on gaining compensation from the Libyan government for the victims of terrorist acts perpetrated by the IRA.

    Mr Andrew Robathan

    As my Rt hon Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Ministers Questions on the 26th March, the British Government has raised repeatedly with the Libyan Government, at the highest levels, the importance of them engaging with UK victims seeking redress. This includes those seeking compensation through private campaigns, and their legal representatives.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-04-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps officials of the UK Permanent Representation to the EU are taking to ensure that the Government’s objectives are met for the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive.

    Jane Ellison

    I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.

    Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government’s negotiating objectives.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-04-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission on the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements through EU Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements.

    Jane Ellison

    I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.

    Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government’s negotiating objectives.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-04-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will discuss with the new European Commissioner for Health, at the earliest opportunity after his or her appointment, continued access by British consumers to safe, high potency vitamins and minerals; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    I raised the issue of the establishment of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, on 10 December 2013, emphasising the importance that any future proposals should be based on science and safety, to allow for the highest safe maximum levels. The nature of the United Kingdom (UK) market and potential impact on availability of thousands of products was underlined. This will be an important issue to raise with the new European Commissioner when appointed.

    Officials at the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) continue to monitor for any development of proposalsfrom the European Commission for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals under the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. Should such a proposal be issued, officials at the UK Representation to the EU will advise and assist the Department in the delivery of the Government’s negotiating objectives.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether all people who received a Royal Prerogative of Mercy had their names listed in the London Gazette.

    Damian Green

    There are no statutory requirements relating to the publication of pardons granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. However, by convention, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery places a notice of such pardons granted in England and Wales in the London Gazette.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, in what circumstances the information pertaining to grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 was lost; and what steps she plans to take to recover that information.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.