David Tredinnick
Conservative - Former Member for Bosworth
First elected: 11th June 1987
Left House: 6th November 2019 (Standing Down)
5 Former APPG memberships
Air Ambulances, Cancer, East Midlands, Integrated Healthcare, Prescribed Drug DependenceDivision Voting information
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 32 Conservative Aye votes vs 228 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 261 Noes - 282
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 33 Conservative Aye votes vs 272 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 331 Noes - 287
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 94 Conservative No votes vs 157 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 160 Noes - 400
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 37 Conservative Aye votes vs 225 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 283
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 59 Conservative Aye votes vs 200 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 65 Noes - 377
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 122 Conservative No votes vs 126 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 139 Noes - 422
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 112 Conservative Aye votes vs 188 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 412 Noes - 202
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 66 Conservative Aye votes vs 164 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 236 Noes - 220
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 68 Conservative Aye votes vs 166 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 234 Noes - 185
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 83 Conservative No votes vs 123 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 360 Noes - 104
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 81 Conservative No votes vs 124 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 363 Noes - 100
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 83 Conservative No votes vs 123 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 366 Noes - 103
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 81 Conservative No votes vs 126 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 367 Noes - 100
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 84 Conservative No votes vs 123 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 365 Noes - 103
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 79 Conservative No votes vs 126 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 368 Noes - 98
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 87 Conservative No votes vs 142 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 256
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 93 Conservative Aye votes vs 139 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 233
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 90 Conservative Aye votes vs 123 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 184
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 39 Conservative Aye votes vs 167 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 205 Noes - 228
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 89 Conservative No votes vs 192 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 462 Noes - 124
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 51 Conservative No votes vs 93 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 215 Noes - 299
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 34 Conservative No votes vs 111 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 298
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 38 Conservative No votes vs 107 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 194 Noes - 306
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 39 Conservative No votes vs 101 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 183 Noes - 308
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 11 Conservative No votes vs 140 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 292
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 12 Conservative No votes vs 139 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 290
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 34 Conservative No votes vs 114 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 190 Noes - 332
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 35 Conservative No votes vs 84 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 173 Noes - 309
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 26 Conservative No votes vs 130 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 233 Noes - 304
David Tredinnick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 65 Conservative No votes vs 77 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 176 Noes - 336
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 34 Conservative Aye votes vs 44 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 340 Noes - 78
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 25 Conservative Aye votes vs 150 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 155 Noes - 418
David Tredinnick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 33 Conservative Aye votes vs 115 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 223 Noes - 172
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
(46 debate interactions)
(40 debate interactions)
(34 debate interactions)
Department Debates
(144 debate contributions)
(46 debate contributions)
(29 debate contributions)
(25 debate contributions)
Legislation Debates
(11,467 words contributed)
(70 words contributed)
Latest EDMs signed by David Tredinnick
Psoriasis Awareness Week
Tabled by: David T C Davies (Conservative - Monmouth)That this House recognises Psoriasis Awareness Week from 27 October – 3 November 2019 which this year aims to highlight how prospective parents can overcome the potential difficulties in treating psoriasis before, during and after childbirth; notes that the peak onset of psoriasis, which can affect as many as one …
(Most recent: 16 Dec 2019)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 12
Conservative: 6
Scottish National Party: 4
Independent: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
A new HMS Coventry
Tabled by: Jim Cunningham (Labour - Coventry South)That this House welcomes the Government's decision to purchase five new type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy; recognises that the name Coventry has been associated with the Royal Navy since 1658; further recognises that six ships have borne the name Coventry in this time until 2002; acknowledges the need …
(Most recent: 30 Oct 2019)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 7
Conservative: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Scottish National Party: 4
The Independent Group for Change: 1
Commons initiatives
These initiatives were driven by David Tredinnick, 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.
David Tredinnick has not been granted any Urgent Questions
2 Adjournment Debates led by David Tredinnick
1 Bill introduced by David Tredinnick
A Bill to make provision in relation to the procedure to be followed by local authorities when varying the charges to be paid in connection with the use of certain parking places.
This Bill received Royal Assent on 27th April 2017 and was enacted into law.
David Tredinnick has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
Latest 19 Written Questions
(View all written questions)2 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Questions
(View all David Tredinnick's Defra questions)The Department does not have any evidence that shows that homeopathic vets are a risk to animal welfare by using homeopathy as an alternative treatment to conventional medicine options.
It should be noted that ‘conventional’ medicines are required to be licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Such products will have undergone clinical trials before receiving a market authorisation – this covers efficacy, safety and an assessment of risks versus benefits. Some homeopathic remedies are registered under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. However, this is a very different process and such products do not undergo the same detailed evaluation – notably efficacy is not considered.
Clinical governance is a requirement for all veterinary surgeons, under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ Code of Professional Conduct which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/
Clinical governance may include critically analysing the evidence base for procedures used and making appropriate changes to practice, which falls directly under the principles of evidence based veterinary medicine. In order to be considered fit to practice, veterinary practitioners hold the responsibility to ground their decisions on sound, objective and up to date evidence, when available.
There was no representation made by the Department at this conference. The Department does not maintain a position on any particular complementary or alternative medicine treatments including homeopathy.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence independently develops evidence based guidance on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NHS treatment and care, including for musculoskeletal conditions, and recommends treatments that have been shown to improve patient outcomes.
The Government supports the integration of health and care services and recognises the good work being done by the Hinckley and Bosworth Wellbeing Partnership by taking a multi-agency approach to increase the wellbeing of people and to support them to live independently in their own homes for longer. Officials will be in contact with the Health and Wellbeing Board to understand more about the work being done.
The Department has no plans to hold any such discussions and does not maintain a position on any particular complementary or alternative medicine treatments.
There is no plan to make an assessment of the merits of the recommendations in the report ‘Untapped Resources: Accredited Registers in the Wider Workforce’.
In 2016, Public Health England (PHE) published a report on this subject entitled ‘Fit for the Future: Public Health People’. Further information is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fit-for-the-future-public-health-people
PHE’s report identified the importance of the wider workforce in delivering the radical upgrade in prevention, alongside a core workforce with strong technical skills.
My Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not met one to one with the Chief Executive of the Professional Standards Authority.
A general practitioner (GP) is able to prescribe any product on the National Health Service they consider necessary for the treatment of their patient unless it is listed in Schedules 1 or 2 to the NHS (General Medical Services Contracts) (Prescription of Drugs etc.) Regulations 2004. The Government is committed to the use of evidence-based therapies for NHS patients.
Schedule 1, commonly referred to as the blacklist, lists a number of drugs, medicines and other substances which GPs cannot prescribe on the NHS, for example, Ribena and some sun tan lotions. Schedule 2, commonly referred to as the greylist, lists drugs, medicines and other substances which GPs can only prescribe in certain circumstances on the NHS, for example influenza treatments for ‘at risk’ groups.
In correspondence to the Department of Health of February and April 2015, Bindmans LLP asked the Government for a blanket ban on the National Health Service prescribing of homeopathic products. Bindmans LLP argued for this on the basis of the costs of these products to the NHS and that homeopathic products were borderline substances.
In its April 2015 reply to Bindmans LLP, a Government official replied to explain that homeopathic products were, in fact, legally defined as medicines and the cost of homeopathic products in NHS primary care was small and reducing. Given this, we considered Bindmans LLP justification for their proposed ban as legally unreasonable and disproportionate.
The Government has made no such announcement and has not had discussions with external stakeholders.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently appraising the peptide receptor radionuclide therapy treatment lutetium-177-DOTA octreotate for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours and for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
NHS England has advised that it will await the outcome of NICE’s appraisals before making any commissioning decisions on peptide receptor radionuclide therapy treatments.
In the meantime, if a patient’s condition is considered clinically exceptional, then an application can be considered under NHS England’s Individual Funding Request system.
The UK Government continues to work closely with the Government of India within the health sector, including working with the Indian Government to open health centres. In 2013 the Department agreed a five year Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of India. This prioritises action on antimicrobial resistance, training and development and universal health coverage. There are no plans to expand this to include complementary and traditional medicine.
We are currently considering whether or not homeopathic products should continue to be available through National Health Service prescriptions. A consultation on proposals will commence early in the new year. The consultation will be undertaken by the Department utilising on-line tools such as the governmental digital platform gov.uk. We do not anticipate any additional external costs.
The Government’s response to the report by Professor David Walker on the Regulation of Herbal Medicines and Practitioners will be published by the end of December 2015.
Practitioners of complementary and alternative medicines are not subject to statutory regulation. A working group has been established to consider a number of matters relating to the use of herbal and traditional medicines by practitioners. I know my hon. Friend is a member of this working group.
The findings of the working group will be published in due course, once it has finished its work. Until that working group has reported, no assessment can be made of the contribution of such practitioners to reducing demands on the National Health Service.