Tag: Ruth Cadbury

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she plans to include legislation for exceptional hardship pleas within the forthcoming review of motoring offences and penalties.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Information about drivers who have not been disqualified from driving as a result of a court accepting that disqualification would lead to exceptional hardship is not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    The Government is committed to making sure that sentencing for those who kill or cause serious injury on the roads is proportionate within the context of our wider sentencing framework. It is our intention to commence a consultation on driving offences and penalties before the end of the year.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment the Secretary of State has made of the potential effects of a third runway at Heathrow Airport on the UK’s ability to meet pollution targets set at COP21.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Any decision regarding future airport capacity will take into account the Government’s obligations under the 2008 Climate Change Act.

    The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has responsibility for addressing emissions from international aviation, rather than the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which held COP21. We are working hard through ICAO to try to secure agreement on a global market-based measure to address international aviation emissions.

    For domestic aviation, which is covered by UNFCCC, emissions are already accounted for under the UK’s Carbon Budgets with the aim of ensuring overall UK emissions are less than 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what support the Government (a) has provided and (b) plans to provide to governments in Africa for eradicating the killing of animals for the ivory trade.

    Rory Stewart

    The UK Government works closely with African and other countries to promote the conservation of the world’s wildlife, including through galvanising action to end the illegal trade in ivory.

    We hosted the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade in February 2014, and supported the Government of Botswana in its hosting of a follow-up Conference in March 2015.

    The UK actively supports the African-led Elephant Protection Initiative, launched in the margins of the London Conference, which now has eleven African countries as members. We have committed over £1 million to this initiative over the last two years.

    Defra’s Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund has made grants to 19 projects in its first round, including eight projects in Africa, worth £2.1 million, tackling the ivory trade. Projects to be funded under a second round will be announced shortly.

    The UK is also providing training in counter-poaching activity in Gabon, through the Ministry of Defence, and has provided support for judicial capacity building in skills related to tackling the illegal trade in wildlife products in Kenya and Tanzania.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many public and private hospitals lie under the Heathrow final approach flight paths; and how many such hospitals would lie under the proposed flightpaths should the third runway be approved.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Government continues to consider the large amount of very detailed analysis contained in the Airports Commission’s final report, including on flight paths, before taking any decisions on next steps. Ultimately, any proposals to alter the airport’s flightpaths would be subject to the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airspace Change Process which includes the need to consult those local communities affected.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans his Department has to further investigate the deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital; and whether any future inquiry will be statutory in nature.

    Ben Gummer

    On 10 July 2014, my Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the establishment of the Gosport Independent Panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, set up to review documentary evidence held across a range of organisations concerning the initial care of families’ relatives and the subsequent investigations into their deaths in Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

    The terms of reference for the Gosport Independent Panel, agreed with the families of the deceased and those treated, were published on 9 December 2014. In summary the terms of reference are to:

    ― consult with the families of the deceased and of those treated to ensure that the views of those affected are taken into consideration;

    ― obtain, examine and analyse documentation from all relevant organisations and individuals (governmental and non-governmental); and

    ― produce a report which will provide an overview of the information reviewed by the Panel and will illustrate how the information disclosed adds to public understanding of these events and their aftermath.

    The review by the Independent Panel is expected to complete by the end of 2017. Until such time as the findings of the Panel are published the Government does not intend to conduct any further inquiries.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had on (a) ending the role of GPs in (i) assessing eligibility for bus passes, parking badges, housing and gym membership and (ii) other non-NHS work and (b) ensuring that such work is commissioned from other sources by the requesting organisation.

    Alistair Burt

    General practitioners (GPs) are independent contractors who hold contracts with NHS England to provide primary medical services for the National Health Service. Under the terms of their contract, GPs are required to provide certain medical reports or complete certain forms, such as those required to support a claim for incapacity benefit, free of charge to their registered patients.

    Outside of contractual requirements, GPs also provide a variety of other services which successive governments have regarded as private matters between the patient and the GP providing these services. Whether or not to provide these services is a matter for individual GPs. They may decline to provide them or charge a fee for doing so. Where GPs intend to charge for services to patients, the British Medical Association advises them to forewarn patients, at the earliest opportunity, of the likely level of fees.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2022 Parliamentary Question on GP Recruitment

    Ruth Cadbury – 2022 Parliamentary Question on GP Recruitment

    The parliamentary question asked by Ruth Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

    Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

    What progress his Department has made on its commitment to recruit 6,000 additional GPs by 2024.

    The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)

    In September 2022 there were nearly 2,300 more full-time equivalent doctors in general practice than there were at the same time in 2019, and more than 9,000 GP trainees.

    Ruth Cadbury

    A constituent of mine, a full-time GP in her 50s, told me that the pension rules mean she has to retire, work part-time or emigrate, which is hardly likely to help her patients to obtain appointments with her. Having hinted at a change in doctors’ pension rules last summer, the Government are only now announcing a consultation that will last until next spring, so there will be no change in these crazy rules until next summer at the earliest. Is this not too little, too late?

    Steve Barclay

    It is worth reminding the House that there are 3% more doctors this year than last year. As I have said, we have 2,300 more full-time GPs, and we are recruiting more. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about doctors’ pensions; that is a material issue, which is why we launched the consultation, and we are working with Treasury colleagues to address these concerns as quickly as possible.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ruth Cadbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his departmental spending on children’s mental health services will be in 2015-16.

    Alistair Burt

    It is not possible to give a total figure for investment in children and young people’s mental health in 2015-16, as there is no ring-fenced allocation and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) are commissioned variously by NHS England, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), local authorities and schools.

    As such, there is no single budget for CAMHS, and expenditure on these services, including those commissioned by National Health Service organisations, is taken from general allocations with priorities for investment being determined locally.

    However, in addition to resources already available to local communities including through the NHS, local authorities, public health and education, the Government is investing an additional £173 million in 2015-16 to transform support for children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, which will include £30 million for eating disorder services.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Ruth Cadbury – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will estimate the number of homes to be sold under the right to buy policy which are likely to become private rental properties (a) in total and (b) in London.

    Brandon Lewis

    Under Right to Buy there are financial restrictions in place for re-sale within 5 years, and councils have the right of first refusal to buy back the property for up to 10 years at market value.

    What a Right to Buy owner chooses to do with their property after they’ve bought it is up to them, just as it is for other home buyers on the open market. Mortgage providers and landlords may place restrictions on letting in the terms of the sale.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    Ruth Cadbury – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    The speech made by Ruth Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    This debate has as its core the issue of standards and integrity in our politics. When he was appointed as Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) proclaimed that he would bring integrity back to Government. He certainly had a front-row seat to its disappearance, seeing that he served faithfully next to a previous Prime Minister with form on the issue. Yet one of his first acts as Prime Minister was to bring back a Home Secretary who just six days before had quit for not one, but two breaches of the ministerial code. They were not accidental breaches or a one-off mistake where an official forgot to tick a box; they were clear breaches of the ministerial rules.

    The issue of standards relates not just to emails and the use of personal IT, but to the ethics of how the Home Office works as a Department. Like all of us, Ministers are public servants. We all sign up to the seven Nolan principles of public life: integrity, openness, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, honesty and leadership. Ministers also have a duty to this country on public safety, national security and human rights and a duty to the taxpayer. Have we seen that from the current Home Secretary? No—and that is what this debate is about.

    I want to focus on the record and decisions of the Home Secretary and the Home Office in relation to their approach to the crisis in the UK response to asylum seekers. For instance, last week the Home Secretary played to the anti-immigration gallery by implying that asylum seekers had to be stopped from wandering our streets—hence the Government’s policy on Manston—yet her Department was responsible for two groups of destitute asylum seekers being found wandering the streets around Victoria and having to be picked up by a small charity to ensure that they had warm clothes, warm shoes and food.

    I also remind the Conservative party that asylum seekers are seeking refuge. They are fleeing—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady is also going a little wider than the terms of the motion. If she could bring herself back to the motion, that would be very helpful to everybody.

    Ruth Cadbury

    I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will let me continue, because I will bring my speech back to the point about standards in public life, which is where I started and what I think this motion is fundamentally about.

    Just to give some background, if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Hounslow there are currently almost 3,000 asylum seekers in nine hotels, and more than 500 in dispersal accommodation, which are mainly rundown houses in multiple occupation with shared kitchens and bathrooms. There are 140 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The challenge locally is not asylum seekers roaming the streets causing problems for the community, because by definition asylum seekers want to play by the rules because they want to be given asylum. They do not want to cause trouble, and they are not going to cause trouble. The problem is the challenge for our public services in making sure that these vulnerable people have the right to education and social services to ensure that they are safe and comfortable while they are waiting in the ever-lengthening queue to get their status. The Home Office—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. The hon. Lady absolutely must come back to the terms of the motion, because she is roaming much wider, and I have pulled up other Members for that. She must come back to the motion itself.

    Ruth Cadbury

    The Home Office has contracts with organisations such as Clearsprings Ready Homes, which then has contracts with a network of other agencies that are providing a terrible service. One person who works with these services said that asylum seekers receive food not fit for a dog and accommodation not fit for animals.

    The hotels—I am coming to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker—receive £40 a room, yet the agencies are receiving Home Office money and taxpayer money at £130 a room, and they are pocketing the difference. The agencies are getting £15 a meal, yet the caterers are receiving £5.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not talking about security, as set out in the motion. If the hon. Lady can tell the House how what she is saying relates to these issues of the release of papers, that would be very helpful.

    Ruth Cadbury

    All right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take your point and I will keep my notes on that level of misuse of taxpayer money for another time.

    I will conclude by saying that perhaps the Prime Minister could finally appoint an independent ethics adviser to ensure that when we see serious breaches of the ministerial code, they can be investigated impartially and a report can be published. I fear that we have returned to an outdated and old-fashioned approach to standards—an approach that simply says, “Trust us, don’t worry, we’ll look after it”, yet surely we and all those who we represent deserve so much better.