Jim Dobbin

Labour (Co-op) - Former Member for Heywood and Middleton

First elected: 1st May 1997


Jim Dobbin is not a member of any APPGs
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Full Member)
21st Jan 2013 - 7th Sep 2014
Transport Committee
21st Mar 2011 - 7th Sep 2014
Consolidation, &c., Bills (Joint Committee)
6th Dec 2010 - 7th Sep 2014
Panel of Chairs
21st Jun 2010 - 7th Sep 2014
European Scrutiny Committee
17th Nov 1998 - 17th Jun 2013
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Substitute Member)
10th Nov 2010 - 21st Jan 2013
Consolidation etc. Bills (Joint Committee)
12th Dec 2001 - 6th May 2010
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
9th Nov 2007 - 9th Mar 2009
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee
9th Nov 2007 - 9th Mar 2009


Division Voting information

Jim Dobbin has voted in 1368 divisions, and 35 times against the majority of their Party.

15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour Aye votes vs 185 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 56 Noes - 454
5 Mar 2014 - Judgments - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour No votes vs 182 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 360 Noes - 104
5 Mar 2014 - Registration of Births, deaths and marriages etc - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 184 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 363 Noes - 100
5 Mar 2014 - Registration of births, deaths and marriages etc - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 184 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 366 Noes - 103
5 Mar 2014 - Marriage - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 182 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 367 Noes - 100
5 Mar 2014 - Marriage - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 183 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 365 Noes - 103
5 Mar 2014 - Marriage - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 183 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 368 Noes - 98
21 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 14 Labour No votes vs 194 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 366 Noes - 161
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 201 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 150 Noes - 340
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Labour Aye votes vs 203 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 148 Noes - 339
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour Aye votes vs 190 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 163 Noes - 321
20 May 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 190 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 70 Noes - 375
5 Feb 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 22 Labour No votes vs 216 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 400 Noes - 175
5 Feb 2013 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 225 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 499 Noes - 55
28 Jan 2013 - Succession to the Crown Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 17 Labour Aye votes vs 154 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 38 Noes - 371
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 69 Labour Aye votes vs 138 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 256
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 66 Labour No votes vs 139 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 233
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 51 Labour No votes vs 141 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 184
7 Sep 2011 - Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 208 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 118 Noes - 368
28 Jun 2011 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 187 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 23 Noes - 473
30 Mar 2011 - Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 33 Labour Aye votes vs 170 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 37 Noes - 480
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour Aye votes vs 212 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 337 Noes - 217
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 211 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 338 Noes - 216
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 14 Labour No votes vs 204 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 520 Noes - 27
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour No votes vs 204 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 517 Noes - 26
9 Nov 2009 - Coroners and Justice Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Labour No votes vs 281 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 342 Noes - 145
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 48 Labour Aye votes vs 230 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 215 Noes - 299
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 49 Labour Aye votes vs 227 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 298
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 47 Labour Aye votes vs 226 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 194 Noes - 306
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 16 Labour No votes vs 261 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 355 Noes - 129
6 May 2008 - Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour No votes vs 266 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 338 Noes - 136
19 Mar 2007 - UK Borders Bill - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 241 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 310 Noes - 100
14 Mar 2007 - Trident - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 94 Labour Aye votes vs 226 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 413
14 Mar 2007 - Trident - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 89 Labour No votes vs 222 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 409 Noes - 161
7 Mar 2007 - House of Lords Reform - View Vote Context
Jim Dobbin voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 152 Labour No votes vs 162 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 416 Noes - 163
View All Jim Dobbin Division Votes

All Debates

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Conservative)
Foreign Secretary
(18 debate interactions)
Andrew Percy (Conservative)
(4 debate interactions)
Glyn Davies (Conservative)
(4 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Department of Health and Social Care
(21 debate contributions)
Department for Education
(12 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
Jim Dobbin has not made any spoken contributions to legislative debate
View all Jim Dobbin's debates

Heywood and Middleton Petitions

e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.

If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.

If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).

Jim Dobbin has not participated in any petition debates

Latest EDMs signed by Jim Dobbin

Jim Dobbin has not signed any Early Day Motions

Commons initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Jim Dobbin, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.

MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.


Jim Dobbin has not been granted any Urgent Questions

Jim Dobbin has not been granted any Adjournment Debates

1 Bill introduced by Jim Dobbin


The Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament before the end of the session. This means the Bill will make no further progress. A Bill to require the Secretary of State to ensure that each Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has at least one board member who is a co-operative or social enterprise business specialist, and that LEP plans make specific reference to development of co-operatives and social enterprises; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Commons
Tuesday 11th March 2014

Jim Dobbin has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 47 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
3 Other Department Questions
22nd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps he is taking to ensure that Green Deal companies employed by the Government are not making nuisance calls under the contract.

The Government does not employ Green Deal companies.

22nd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to the Answer of 11 December 2013, Official Report, column 247W, on students: loans, how many complaints (a) he and (b) the Office of Fair Trading has received about changes to the conditions of student loans sold to Erudio Student Loans Limited for loan holders (i) nationally and (ii) in Greater Manchester; what steps he has taken to remind Erudio of its responsibility to uphold the original conditions of the loan; what guidance he has issued to purchasers of the student loan book on how student loans impact credit ratings; and if he will place in the Library a copy of that guidance.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had received complaints about Erudio Student Loans Limited from 38 loan holders (or their elected representatives) as at 31st July 2014.

  • Twelve of these did not specify their location.
  • Of the remaining 26, 15 were from (or about) loan holders in England, of which one was in Greater Manchester.

The Office of Fair Trading was closed on 1st April 2014 and its responsibilities in relation to consumer credit passed to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Financial Conduct Authority does not investigate individual complaints. The Financial Ombudsman Service is a free, independent service for settling disputes between financial services firms and their customers, which can deal with complaints about a wide range of financial matters.

Erudio has been notified of five complaints received by the Financial Ombudsman Service as at 31st July 2014. None of these was from loan holders in Greater Manchester.

Mortgage style student loans are regulated loans under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). Terms and conditions are specified in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 and in borrowers’ loan credit agreements. Erudio Student Loans Limited is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and must act in compliance with the terms and conditions of the loans, relevant regulatory requirements, industry guidance and all applicable laws.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has not issued guidance to Erudio Student Loans Limited in relation to how mortgage style student loans impact on borrowers’ credit scores, as the Department has no involvement in the credit scoring process.

The leaflet ‘Credit explained’ published by the Information Commissioner’s Office explains this in more detail and is available at

http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/credit-explained-dp-guidance.pdf.

1st Jul 2014
To ask the Prime Minister, whether it is the Government's policy that decisions in Parliament relating to abortion should be subject to a free vote; and if he will instruct that the Department for International Development's practice paper, Safe and unsafe abortion, published in July 2011, should not be regarded as an expression of the Government's policy until its contents have been approved by the House in a free vote.

Issues on matters of conscience have, by tradition, been the subject of a free vote in the House of Commons. Issues relating to abortion in other countries are determined by respective Governments.

9th Jun 2014
To ask the Attorney General, what the terms of reference are for the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); whether the SFO will investigate (a) GSK's activities within the UK, (b) allegations of bribery of UK doctors, (c) promotion of Seroxat prescribing for children and (d) the 2002 CSM Expert Working Group on the safety of SSRI antidepressants; and whether there is a point of contact for members of the public who wish to help the SFO investigation.

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) recently announced that he has opened a criminal investigation into the commercial practices of GlaxoSmithKline plc and its subsidiaries. The SFO investigation will follow the evidence and it is not appropriate to comment whilst enquiries are continuing.

A press release regarding GlaxoSmithKline and information on how to contact the SFO can be found on its website at www.sfo.gov.uk

17th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the Answer of 196584 6 May 2014, Official Report, column 41W, on drinking water, what plans his Department has to test for the levels of tranquillisers and antidepressants in drinking water; and if his Department will conduct a study into levels of psychotropic drugs in UK river and seawater.

In 2012, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) published research looking at pharmaceuticals likely to present the worst case scenario in drinking water. Fluoxetine was included in the study, the outcome of which was that these pharmaceuticals presented no concern for public health. The research is part of an ongoing risk assessment which is revisited in the event of new information. The DWI has also responded to the earlier PQ (0019) on this matter.

Monitoring river water and seawater is driven by requirements under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). As psychotropic drugshave not been identified as harmful chemicals under the WFD they are not routinely monitored, although they may be detected in less-specific investigations.

The water industry has undertaken collaborative research into chemicals in sewage effluent through the UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) Chemicals Investigation Programme. Some medicines were included in the first Programme of 2010-13, including fluoxetine. A second Chemical Investigations Programme, beginning in 2015, will look at the psychoactive medicines fluoxetine and sertraline in sewage effluent.

4th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 6 May 2014, Official Report, column 41W, on drinking water, whether his Department has conducted a study of levels of psychotropic drugs in UK rivers and seawater.

Currently no psychotropic drugs have been identified as Priority Hazardous Substances, Priority Substances or UK Specific Pollutants under the Water Framework Directive. As such no routine monitoring is carried out for these substances in England.

However, previous research by the Environment Agency on pharmaceuticals in surface waters included environmental monitoring for the psychotropic drug fluoxetine (an anti-depressant). In 2005, monitoring was undertaken in rivers downstream of a number of sewage works across England and Wales. Thirty-nine samples were taken with fluoxetine occurring in 85% of samples with a maximum concentration of 0.044 microgrammes/litre (µg/l), and norfluoxetine in 51% of samples with a maximum concentration of 0.083 µg/l.

During 2011, a programme of monitoring for pesticides was undertaken in six catchments. The psychotropic drugs carbamazepine and gabapentin were detected in all six catchments with maximum levels of 0.7 µg/l and 1.2 µg/l respectively.

The report published by the Drinking Water Inspectorate evaluated the risk from psychotropic drugs in river water used for abstraction for drinking water supplies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the Drinking Water Inspectorate has conducted any research into the level of psychotropic drugs in UK drinking water.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate has published the results of a study looking at the risk of pharmaceuticals and health care products in drinking water. This included consideration of commonly used compounds that might be considered to be "psychotropic".

These include carbamezapine (an antiepileptic and mood stabilising medicine) and fluoxetine (antidepressant). Additionally, the study considered the illegal drug cocaine and its metabolite benzoylecgonine (sold as a topical analgaesic). Cocaine and fluoxetine were not detected in any samples. Only minute traces of benzoylecgonine and carbamezapine at levels several orders of magnitude below therapeutic doses were found in a few samples. This study has informed water supply monitoring and risk management by water companies.

The results of the study can be found on the Drinking Water Inspectorate's website.

8th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 7 July 2014, Official Report, column 1W, on abortion, if she will withdraw her Department's policy position paper entitled Safe and Unsafe Abortion pending a free vote in the House on the use of UK aid to (a) campaign for more liberal abortion laws in other countries and (b) provide abortion services in other countries.

The policy paper sets out how UK aid can be used to save the lives of women at risk from unsafe abortion, in accordance with the responsibilities that Parliament has given the Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department has taken to reorganise its funding model to ensure that it is encouraging service delivery for complex multiple needs, in line with an intregrated model of healthcare solutions.

DFID supports work to strengthen health systems and deliver health programmes, helping developing countries to assess and provide for the health needs of its people. This will enable countries to make sound decisions about the delivery of the promotion, prevention and treatment services that are needed.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she is taking to ensure that her Department's vaccination programmes reach children with disabilities.

The UK is a leading advocate for vaccination coverage that ensures that the poorest and most vulnerable groups, including those with disability, have access to essential vaccines. The UK funds the GAVI Alliance, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Measles and Rubella Initiative to conduct supplemental immunisation activities, specifically targeting children who are outside the routine immunisation service delivery system.

The UK's goal on immunisations is that every child is fully immunised with equitable coverage of core vaccines. In 2011, the UK committed over four years to vaccinate over 80 million children against preventable diseases, including diseases which can lead to disability, through the GAVI Alliance. DFID's 2014 Annual Report shows we are on track to meet this commitment.

24th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will estimate the number of cases of a local authority paying a landlord directly because a tenant who receives universal credit was more than eight weeks behind on rent payments; and what steps his Department has taken to (a) encourage tenants in receipt of universal credit to pay rent on time and (b) tackle repeated non-payment of rent by universal credit claimants.

Housing payments are not administered by Local Authorities under Universal Credit. All claimants in Universal Credit are offered practical help and advice on budgeting and money management early on in their claim alongside being advised of their responsibility to pay rent to their landlords. We make an initial judgement on each claim as to whether the claimant is at risk of default. If so we can put them on managed payments immediately. Any representations received from the landlord will be taken into account when reaching this judgement.

If it is decided to pay the rent direct to the claimant then we have two safeguards in place. First, we will review our initial decision if we are advised that arrears have reached the equivalent of one month's rent. Second, if direct payments have continued, we will move to payment to the landlord if we are advised that arrears have reached the equivalent of two months' rent.

23rd Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effect of universal credit on landlords who have claimants as tenants; what the results were of the direct payment demonstration projects on the effect of paying housing benefit direct to tenants; and if he will reduce the two calendar month rent arrears trigger point before a landlord can go directly to his Department for direct payment.

Interim evaluation from the first 6 months of the Direct Payment Demonstration Projects was published in December 2013 and can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265257/direct-payment-demo-figures-dec-2013.pdf

DWP has developed three levels of safeguards for tenants and landlords based on findings from the Direct Payment Demonstration Projects and continuous improvements through our test and learn approach in live service.

We make an initial judgement on each claim as to whether the claimant is at risk of default and if so, we can put them on managed payments immediately. In the majority of cases Direct Payments will apply and we have two safeguards in place; (1) We will review the initial decision if we are advised that arrears have reached the equivalent of one months rent. (2) We will move to payment to the landlord if we are advised that arrears have reached the equivalent of two months rent.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his Department's policy is on categorising modification to genomic DNA in mitochondria through pronuclear transfer or maternal spindle transfer as genetic modification.

The Department decided that, because there is no existing universally agreed definition of genetic modification in humans, it would adopt a working definition. The definition that has been adopted is that genetic modification involves the germ-line modification of nuclear DNA (in the chromosomes) that can be passed on to future generations. We will keep this working definition under review.

The proposed mitochondrial donation techniques do not constitute genetic modification.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of changes in the survival rate of babies born before 24 weeks gestation; and if he will make a statement.

The latest data published by the Office for National Statistics in October 2013 shows that very few live births occur before 24 weeks gestation. Infant mortality rates for babies born this early remain extremely high. For babies born in 2011, 1 in 1000 of live births occurred at less than 24 weeks; the infant mortality rate for these babies was 894.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Data from the Epicure series of studies of survival and later health among babies and young people who were born at extremely low gestations found there was no difference in the ongoing illnesses or complications affecting surviving babies born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation in 1995 and 2006. High levels of disability were present at 6 years of age in surviving children born before 24 weeks, including cerebral palsy, low cognitive scores, mobility problems, blindness or profound hearing loss.

16th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answers of 9 July 2014, Official Report, column 313W, on ovarian cancer and 24 June 2014, Official Report, columns 156-7W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, if his Department will collect data on the number of women admitted to hospital with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS); if he will take steps to ensure systematic reporting of OHSS from egg sharing and egg donation; if he will make it his policy that ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome be notifiable; and if he will take steps to ensure that women are accurately informed of the risk of hospitalisation from OHSS when considering egg donation or egg sharing procedures.

Collection of data relating to treatments regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, and the recording of serious adverse clinical reactions come within the statutory duties of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

At its meeting on 9 July 2014, the HFEA agreed a new strategy for 2014-2017, which sets out its regulatory focus. Also at that meeting, the Authority members agreed to give consideration to the collection of additional data when a case of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome is reported. The HFEA will take expert scientific and medical advice on whether such data collection would be of value and on the feasibility of collecting reliable information.

The papers for the meeting and an audio record of the discussions can be found on HFEA’s website at:

www.hfea.gov.uk/Authority-July-2014.html

14th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer to the hon Member for Congleton of 7 April 2014, Official Report, columns 42-3W, on in vitro fertilisation, what estimate he has made of the number of eggs that would be required annually for (a) pro-nuclear transfer and (b) maternal spindle transfer every year.

There is no set number of eggs required for use before the research to enable pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer can be considered safe for use in the treatment of women.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no estimate of the number of eggs that would be required annually for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer.

14th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many eggs are required before the research to enable (a) pro-nuclear transfer and (b) maternal spindle transfer is considered safe for treatment in women.

There is no set number of eggs required for use before the research to enable pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer can be considered safe for use in the treatment of women.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no estimate of the number of eggs that would be required annually for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer.

8th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure that drug retailers accurately describe the operations of their products; if he will require retailers of the drug Ulipristal acetate to detail accurately its abortifacient effects; and if he will make a statement.

Ulipristal acetate is the active ingredient in the emergency contraceptive known as EllaOne.

Following a High Court ruling in 2002, emergency contraception is defined as a method of contraception not abortion. The decision confirms the Government's long held position that a pregnancy begins at implantation and not fertilisation. This judgment means that this position is now established in law and is not a matter of policy

EllaOne is a contraceptive, it is not an abortifacient.It exerts its contraceptive action by preventing or delaying ovulation.

EllaOne is used to prevent pregnancy for up to five days after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. It is specifically contraindicated for use during an existing or suspected pregnancy

The information provided in each pack of EllaOne clearly informs women and healthcare professionals that it should not be taken by a woman who knows or suspects she is pregnant.

8th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 7 July 2014, Official Report, column 43W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, what information the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) collects about the (a) identity of drugs used in treatment and (b) dosage used and the associated regimen for ovarian stimulation at each clinic; and what comparative assessment he has made of the collection of such data by the HFEA and by other countries that report data to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it does not collect information on the identity of drugs used in treatment, the dosage used and the associated regimen for ovarian stimulation at each licenced centre. As a result, no comparison has been made with data collected by countries submitting information to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

1st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 June 2014, Official Report, columns 156-7W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the reductions in the number and proportion of severe cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome reported to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority between 2009 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2011.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no assessment of the reason as to why there was a reduction in the number and proportion of severe cases of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome reported to the Authority between 2009 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2011.

1st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 June 2014, Official Report, columns 156-7W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, in how many licensable treatment cycles at least (a) 30 and (b) 40 eggs per cycle were collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

The information requested is shown in the attached table.

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, in how many of licensable treatment cycles at least 20 eggs were collected in the last five years for which figures are available.

The information requested in shown in the following table:

Years

Licensable treatment cycles where at least 20 eggs were collected

2008

2,910

2009

3,095

2010

3,435

2011

3,466

2012

3,464

20131

1,764

Note:

1The year 2013 only covers the period 1 January to 30 June 2013.

Source: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many women were admitted to hospital with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how many adverse incidents were recorded in licensed clinics in that period; and what the severity grading of each such incident was.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that the data it holds on these issues is as follows:

Year

Total number of incidents reported

Severity: Grade A

Severity: Grade B

Severity: Grade C

Not an incident/near miss

2009-10

497

7

308

146

36

2010-11

586

1

292

255

38

2011-12

571

3

206

308

54

2012-13

503

0

183

261

59

2013-14

506

4

203

255

44

Of these, the number of cases of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) reported to the Authority is as follows:

Years

Number of OHSS

Moderate

Severe

2009-10

121

1

120

2010-11

221

122

99

2011-12

241

196

45

2012-13

179

134

45

2013-14

192

142

50

The HFEA has also advised that licensed fertility clinics are only required to report instances of OHSS to the Authority that require a hospital admission with a severe grading, although in practice clinics often report moderate OHSS as well.

17th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Answer of 19 January 2012, Official Report, columns 932-3W, how many companies hold licences for the manufacture or distribution of (a) Nitrazepam, (b) Flurazepam, (c) Loprazolam, (d) Lormetazepam, (e) Temazepam, (f) Clonazepam, (g) Medazepam, (h) Midazolam, (i) Zopiclone, (j) Zaleplon, (k) Zolpiden, (l) Eszopiclone, (m) SSRI antidepressants and (n) trycyclic antidepressants; and how many of those licences were issued in the last three years.

There are currently 15 products authorised in the United Kingdom containing nitrazepam and 15 different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently two products authorised in the UK containing flurazepam and one company authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently two products authorised in the UK containing loprazolam and two different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently eight products authorised in the UK containing lormetazepam and four different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently 10 products authorised in the UK containing temazepam and six different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently six products authorised in the UK containing clonazepam and three different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently no authorised products in the UK containing medazepam.

There are currently 22 products authorised in the UK containing midazolam and 10 different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently 17 products authorised in the UK containing zopiclone and nine different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently two products authorised in the UK containing zaleplon and one company authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently 21 products authorised in the UK containing zolpidem and 12 different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently no authorised products in the UK containing eszopiclone.

There are currently 238 products authorised in the UK containing SSRI antidepressants and 57 different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

There are currently 16 products authorised in the UK containing tricyclic antidepressants and 11 different companies authorised to manufacture and distribute them.

One loprazolam, four lormetazepam, two clonazepam, two midazolam, three zopiclone, four zolpidem and 75 SSRI products have been authorised in the last three years.

4th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people in England in receipt of free social care are terminally ill.

Local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of any person for whom the authority may arrange social care and who may be in need of such care. They have a further duty to decide, having regard to the results of the assessment, what, if any, care and support they should provide to meet the individual's needs. Where a local authority decides to arrange care and support it will carry out a financial assessment to decide what an individual can afford to contribute towards the cost. Appeals against decisions by local authorities are considered locally. Information about appeals is not collected centrally.

In its 2011 report, the independent Palliative Care Funding Review recommended the provision of free social care at the end of life. A series of palliative care funding pilots were established to test the review's recommendations, and these completed their work in March 2014. NHS England is currently analysing the financial data collected from the pilots. Once this analysis has been completed, a decision will be made on the issue of free social care at the end of life, taking into account this analysis and wider policy and financial considerations.

4th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many appeals were made by applicants for social care at the end of their life in the last two years; how many such appeals were successful; and what proportion of total appeals against decisions about social care such appeals represent.

Local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of any person for whom the authority may arrange social care and who may be in need of such care. They have a further duty to decide, having regard to the results of the assessment, what, if any, care and support they should provide to meet the individual's needs. Where a local authority decides to arrange care and support it will carry out a financial assessment to decide what an individual can afford to contribute towards the cost. Appeals against decisions by local authorities are considered locally. Information about appeals is not collected centrally.

In its 2011 report, the independent Palliative Care Funding Review recommended the provision of free social care at the end of life. A series of palliative care funding pilots were established to test the review's recommendations, and these completed their work in March 2014. NHS England is currently analysing the financial data collected from the pilots. Once this analysis has been completed, a decision will be made on the issue of free social care at the end of life, taking into account this analysis and wider policy and financial considerations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his policy is on allowing doctors and nurses who have a conscientious objection to supplying contraceptive drugs or devices which act after fertilisation to receive diplomas in sexual and reproductive health.

The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare are responsible for decisions on the syllabus of their Diploma, the requirements for entry to the Diploma course, and the award of a Diploma qualification.

The Department understands that their guidelines on the syllabus and on possible conscientious objection have not changed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will take steps to ensure that the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists acts to accommodate doctors and nurses who have a conscientious objection to supplying contraceptive drugs or devices which act after fertilisation receive a diploma in sexual and reproductive health.

The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare are responsible for decisions on the syllabus of their Diploma, the requirements for entry to the Diploma course, and the award of a Diploma qualification.

The Department understands that their guidelines on the syllabus and on possible conscientious objection have not changed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 16 July 2013, Official Report, column 1667W, on drugs: poisoning, how many (a) men, (b) women and (c) children were admitted to hospital for drug poisoning, showing ICD10 codes T36-T50 separately at a four character level in 2013.

The information requested has been placed in the Library. It provides a count of the number of finished admission episodes with a primary diagnosis of T36-T50 for male and female adults and children for the year 2012-13. Explanatory footnotes have also been provided.

It should be noted that this is not a count of patients as the same patient may have been admitted more than once in a year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of potential correlation between relative deprivation and the prescribing rates of benzodiazepines at GP practices.

The Department has undertaken no such assessment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will discuss with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists the decision of its faculty of sexual and reproductive health not to allow doctors and nurses who have a conscientious objection to supplying contraceptive drugs or devices which act after fertilisation to receive its diploma in sexual and reproductive health.

The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare is responsible for decisions on the syllabus of its Diploma, the requirements for entry to the Diploma course, and the award of a Diploma qualification.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the findings of the recent Global Forum on Incontinence into improving health and social care in incontinence.

No assessment has been made of the findings of the recent Global Forum on Incontinence (GFI) into improving health and social care in incontinence. However, we applaud the work of the GFI and the work it is doing to improve the health and social care provisions for incontinence, giving patients and care givers a better quality of life.

Responsibility for continence services sit with NHS England and clinical commissioning groups (CCG). CCGs are responsible for commissioning high quality continence services based on an assessment of local need and performance managing their providers in the delivery of high quality services.

The Mandate to NHS England requires it to deliver continued improvements in relation to enhancing the quality of life for people with long-term conditions, including those suffering incontinence, across the five domains of the NHS Outcomes Framework. NHS England will be taking forward a major programme of work through the Primary Care Strategy; it has established a working group on continence care and will provide an update for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Continence Care on 24 June.

To improve standards in continence care, the Department commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to develop clinical guidelines on the management of urinary incontinence in women (issued in 2006) and faecal incontinence in adults (issued in 2007), which are supported by commissioning tools to support CCGs. In February, NICE published a clinical Quality Standard on Faecal Incontinence, QS54, which describes high-priority areas for quality improvement in this area. NHS England continues to champion the use of Quality Standards with both commissioners and providers.

We believe all patients have the right to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion.

We recognise that continence can impact on every aspect of peoples' lives and that it often requires a joined approach from both health and social care services. That is why in April the Department published the policy paper, Transforming Primary Care: safe proactive, personalised care for those who need it, which focuses on improving and individualising the management of out of hospital care, directly supporting those with continence problems by creating more integrated health and social care services. This paper has been placed in the Library.

22nd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will take steps to ensure that British Embassy staff in Iraq make contact with Danny Fitzsimon, who is held prisoner in that country.

Embassy staff have visited Mr Fitzsimons and continue to attempt to do so despite the security situation in the area of Iraq where Mr Fitzsimons is detained. When they have been unable to visit, staff have had contact by phone or in writing. We will continue to provide consular support, taking into account the local conditions. The British Government remains in regular discussions with the Iraqi Authorities about Mr Fitzsimons’ case.

22nd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps he is taking to encourage the Iraq government to sign the Ministry of Justice's draft Prison Transfer Agreement.

Officials at our Embassy in Baghdad remain in discussion with the Government of Iraq about a UK-Iraq prisoner transfer agreement. Negotiations are at an advanced stage and we continue to work to conclude these as soon as possible.

1st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Government supports recommendation 1224 of the UN Human Rights Council's Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), published in February 2014; and whether his Department has taken steps to support the work of human rights non-governmental organisations in their attempts to broadcast accessible information into the DPRK and to improve the human rights situation in that country.

The UK does not currently provide financial support to any of the organisations making cross-border broadcasts into the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK). Through our Embassy in Pyongyang however, the UK is one of the few countries who are able to engage directly with North Koreans, complementing the efforts of others, like the US, who support broadcasts into North Korea. The recent report of the UN Commission of Inquiry into human rights in North Korea recognised the importance of both approaches.

The UK continues to play an active role in raising human rights violations in the DPRK in other meaningful ways. For example, we pressed for a strong DPRK resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council, including a call for the UN General Assembly to submit the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the UN Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action. In April, we and other Security Council members took part in a public “Arria” briefing by the Commission and in May, we raised the need for a continued focus on human rights during a UN Security Council Sanctions Committee. Recently, I visited Geneva, where I took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. I raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn's UN General Assembly session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.

1st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if the Government will bring the conclusions relating to the genocidal extermination of Christianity in the report commissioned by Human Liberty entitled crimes against humanity published in May 2014 to the attention of the UN Security Council, the North Korean Government and HM Embassy in Pyongyang.

We are aware of the report produced by Hogan Lovells on behalf of Human Liberty. However, we note that the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) were unable to establish the crime of genocide on religious grounds, because the available evidence in this respect was ambiguous.


However, the COI did find that systematic and widespread human rights violations were taking place, and did find reasonable grounds to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The findings of the COI formed the basis of the core text of the subsequent UN Human Rights Council resolution on the DPRK, adopted in March 2014, which the UK cosponsored.

In April, the same month, the UK took part in a public ‘Arria-formula' briefing with other Security Council member states to consider DPRK human rights. In May, the UK raised DPRK human rights concerns during closed consultations between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Security Council. In June, I visited Geneva, where I took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. I raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn's UN General Assembly (UNGA) session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.

9th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will take steps to ensure that the provisions of EU law in relation to the freedom to provide services apply to the provision of services from Gibraltar to any part of the EU.

Gibraltar is in the EU and is covered by EU treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services. We vigorously support all of Gibraltar's rights under the EU Treaties.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what reports he has received on the fairness of the hearing of Asiya Noreen Bibi sentenced to death in 2011 at the provincial Lahore High Court.

We receive regular reports on the case of Mrs Bibi and others facing charges of blasphemy in Pakistan and we are aware that a numbers of NGOs and other governments follow her case closely. We remain concerned about the case of Asia Bibi and would urge the courts in Pakistan to ensure a fair and swift hearing of her appeal due later this month.

22nd Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to reduce the effect of data breaches of sensitive immigration information on people whose details have been accidentally published online.

The Home Office takes data breaches of any type extremely seriously and they will be subject to our established procedure for managing data-related incidents. This entails a detailed risk-assessment exercise to determine the impact on the Data Subject together with actions designed to reduce the level of exposure wherever it is practical to do so.

Subject to the outcome of the risk assessment the Department may choose to inform the Data Subjects and the primary factor in this decision is the personal safety and security of those concerned. Regardless of whether the decision is taken to inform Data Subjects or not, every effort is made to remove the material in question from all platforms visible to the public.

16th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what reports she has received on the time taken for the Metropolitan Police to act in the case of a foreign national conducting a seminar which is alleged to have encouraged assistance with suicide in London, June 2013; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the case is now properly investigated.

No such reports have been received. The investigation of criminal offences is an operational matter for the police. It would therefore not be appropriate for
the Government to interfere in police investigations.

16th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make it her policy to routinely refuse visas to foreign nationals who enter the UK with the aim of encouraging or assisting suicide.

A foreign national may be refused entry clearance or leave to enter the UK, if, from information available the person’s exclusion is considered to be conducive to the public good. This could include information indicating that the person may be intending to commit an offence while in the UK. Each decision is made on a case by case basis taking into account all the relevant factors.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to tackle the street trade in prescription tranquilisers.

We are fully aware of the dangers of the misuse of prescription drugs such as tranquilisers, and law enforcement authorities have a robust range of powers available to deal with those who engage in the diversion and illicit trade of such drugs, particularly where those drugs are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Police forces use these powers to tackle the trade of such substances in their area, and action is also being taken to tackle illicit online sales. For instance, the Medicines Healthcare and Regulatory Products Agency works closely with Internet Service Providers to close down websites that are illicitly selling prescription drugs to UK consumers. In June 2013, the Agency and Border Force collaborated on Operation Pangea, an annual international initiative which in the UK led to the seizure of 3.7 million doses of unlicensed medicine worth approximately £12.2 million.

As well as cracking down on the illicit supply of prescription drugs, we are taking steps to increase our understanding of the problem. This is why in September 2013 the Home Secretary asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to explore the potential for medical and social harms arising from the diversion and illicit supply of prescription drugs. I have asked that this work includes consideration of the prevalence of misuse, user demographics, and the most common drugs being misused. The Advisory Council is likely to report later in the year.

23rd Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with the Defence Consultant Adviser for Psychiatry about Asperger's syndrome in the context of the Defence Medical Services policy review; and whether he plans to change his Department's policy on the recruitment to the armed forces of people diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.

There have been no such discussions with the Secretary of State or other Defence Ministers.

It is our policy that Armed Forces personnel should be recruited to be fully fit for deployment worldwide on operations. For this reason, the Services do not recruit personnel with existing medical conditions which may adversely impact on the effectiveness of the Armed Forces, or which may themselves be exacerbated by military circumstances.

This is particularly relevant in cases of individuals with autism or Asperger's Syndrome, as military personnel are expected to perform in multiple roles, which may be difficult for someone suffering from these disorders. Further, all military personnel are required to work in close-knit teams, and in operational environments the pressures are such that anyone with significant disability in social interaction may potentially be a danger to themselves or their team. These two diagnoses have significant disability in social interaction as part of their defining features.

The policy on Asperger's has recently been changed to allow some minimal degree of relaxation for those candidates for the Services who do not display classic symptoms of the Syndrome or where their diagnosis may be in doubt. It places more emphasis on assessing their ability to perform as part of a team and to function within a simulated military environment and less on medical opinion.

24th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to achieve a prisoner transfer agreement between Iraq and the UK; and what steps he is taking to achieve a prisoner transfer agreement between Iraq and the UK with regard to Danny Fitzsimons.

The negotiation of a prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Iraq is at an advanced stage. Officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are in discussion with the Iraqi authorities and we hope to finalise the agreement at the earliest possible opportunity. Once in place British nationals imprisoned in Iraq and Iraqi nationals imprisoned here, will be able to serve their sentences in their own country. Given the security situation in Iraq, we have reminded the Iraqi Government of its important duty of care for foreign nationals held in its prisons and have asked for urgent advice on their contingency planning.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle illicit trade in prescription tranquilisers in prisons.

The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) deploys a comprehensive range of measures to reduce the availability of drugs in prisons, including targeted searching, drug education, and other interventions. Prisoners are also subject to random and targeted mandatory drug tests, which include a test for the misuse of benzodiazepines. Prisoners found with prohibited items face swift and robust punishment. This can include having days added to their custody, being transferred to a different prison and losing privileges.

NOMS is not complacent about the potential misuse of prescription medication in prisons and prison governors work closely with healthcare providers to ensure that relevant information is shared and that medication is safely and appropriately administered.

The published National Partnership Agreement between NOMS, NHS England and Public Health England (www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/noms/work-with-partners/national-partnership-agreement-commissioning-delivery-healthcare-prisons2013.pdf) has a commitment to review the level and choice of prescription medications within prisons and for the organisations to work together with professional bodies to promote changes in prescribing practice and tackle abuse of medications.