Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hoare and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady rightly raises an important case, and I have met her about it and followed it closely. As she says, there is work ongoing and happening this week to try to make progress. NICE is currently developing technical appraisal guidance on the use of the drug Spinraza, to which she refers. We are working to ensure that we can get it right.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on multiple sclerosis, may I urge my right hon. Friend to ask NICE to expedite its perfectly proper processes on the licensing of cannabis-based drugs, particularly for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. My hon. Friend raises another important area where progress is being made on the ability for people to get access to drugs that could help them. We now have a medicinal cannabis programme in place, as we discussed in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago, so that those with acute conditions and with clinical support for using medicinal cannabis can get it. We are also working as rapidly as we reasonably can to normalise the ability to use medicinal cannabis within the NHS.

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Simon Hoare and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. and learned Lady has demonstrated just how much this is a matter for the courts and potentially criminal. She raises the issue of civil action. That is how in this country we deal with misdoing such as this that is potentially criminal.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the allegations published are true, they would be criminal acts and could be prosecuted today, without any recourse to either Leveson 2 or indeed any other inquiry? If there is a concern about access to funds, might Mr Mosley and his supporters fund such an action?

[Matt Hancock]

Certainly the allegations we have read about are potentially criminal, and dealing with that is a matter not for Ministers but, rightly, for the police.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Simon Hoare and Matt Hancock

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

While we are right to celebrate a free press within our democracy, are we not also right to demand a responsible press? With freedom comes responsibility. On the subject of responsibility, may I invite the Secretary of State to share his thoughts as to whether, in order to ensure a free and open democracy, the responsible thing to do would be for Members to hand back racially tainted money?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend’s second point raises a very important question. I am sure the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) will be thinking very hard about that now that he has admitted that it was a mistake to take this money. On my hon. Friend’s first point, it is critical that the press and online publications act responsibly and accurately in their reporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. The amendments that will come before the House in coming months would have very complicated impacts on the devolution settlement that I do not want to go into. I am very happy with the devolution settlement in this area. It is a good settlement, and I look forward to trying to ensure that it is maintained through the passage of the Bill.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Matt Hancock

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Well, I have news for my hon. Friend. Next month, Ofcom will publish data for both fixed-line broadband and mobile phone coverage at the premise level for each individual premise. If the supposed coverage is different from what Ofcom says, there will be a mechanism to feed that back so that we get a proper map of coverage in both those respects. I look forward enormously to that happening, and I am sure that the Select Committee will investigate that data with great aplomb.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I ask the Minister to ensure that proper discussion takes place with the Department for Communities and Local Government so that the most sensible, but liberal, planning regime for new mobile telephone masts is in place in order to provide what amounts to a basic technological requirement.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, and the new rules came into place last week. Nobody prayed against the statutory instruments in either House, so there was unanimous support for a more liberal planning regime. If my hon. Friend would like to work with me on what steps might be needed to improve the planning regime further, I am all his.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Simon Hoare and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

It is self-evident that if the issues in the Bill relate to England and Wales, as they do, the Bill should, in the view of the Government, be certified as an England and Wales Bill. It is a consequence of devolution that those representing England and Wales should be able to have their vote on a Bill that relates only to England and Wales.

To respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I should say that it is inconceivable that anybody would unwind these provisions in any future Parliament, given that they protect English and Welsh voters from having legislation imposed on them without the will of the majority of Members with constituencies in England and Wales. The reaction of those who could then be overruled by others who had their own devolved Assemblies and Parliaments would be quite savage.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I am a member of the Procedure Committee. We were very clear in our deliberations that Mr Speaker would make a ruling as to whether legislation fell within these protocols or not, but that he would not be expected or required to give the raison d’être as to why he made the ruling.

I may be out of order, Madam Chairman, in raising this as a point of order, but having listened to this exchange, I feel somewhat as if the authority of the Chair, and the decision that Mr Speaker has taken, is now being challenged. Critically, that seems to be undermining what we thought was an important principle —namely, that the authority of the Chair should be such that neither a challenge to nor an explanation of his or her ruling would be required or expected.