Category: Speeches

  • Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether HM Revenue and Customs conducted an open tender exercise to select the Codentify system for piloting as a tobacco product authentication tool.

    Damian Hinds

    Tobacco products classified as ‘illicit’ in the UK include anything on which duty has not been paid but should have been paid. This includes counterfeit products, brands manufactured legally overseas but not legally sold in the UK, and genuine products originating in the UK and overseas but diverted from legitimate supply chains by criminals. Because of this, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) officers use a variety of ways to identify illicit product. Testing product authenticity is one mechanism.

    To test product authenticity, HMRC uses identifiers required by legislation, for example, Fiscal Marks which manufacturers are required to print on specified tobacco products to show they are UK duty paid, as well as voluntary tools used by the manufacturers. One such voluntary tool is Codentify.

    Codentify was developed and introduced by the major tobacco manufacturers on their own initiative through the Digital Coding and Tracking Association (DCTA). HMRC played no part in the development or introduction of the system nor did HMRC require that it be introduced. Codentify codes already feature on packs and are there regardless of any HMRC use of them. HMRC took a policy decision, in line with the commitment to tackle illicit tobacco, to examine whether these existing codes could provide a useful additional tool to help officers authenticate product in the field.

    The trial is concerned only with the use of Codentify for product authentication, and no other aspect of the system is being used or evaluated. Codentify requires no specialist equipment or training. Officers are provided with basic guidance and access to an online system. No charge is made for use of the system and, as no procurement was needed, there was no requirement for HMRC to run a tender exercise. As this is a trial only, no Ministerial approval was required or has been sought.

    A number of HMRC officers have been given access to the system and trained by HMRC colleagues. The time spent on this activity is minimal and is estimated to be less than one staff year in total.

    HMRC has explained the use of Codentify as a potential product authentication tool to colleagues in Border Force and Trading Standards. However, they have not provided training to any officers in those organisations.

    The EU Tobacco Products Directive introduces a requirement for a pan European security feature and track and trace systems. The European Commission, working with Member States, is considering proposals and have yet to determine any technical specifications,

    HMRC is aware of a wide range of potential track and trace and security feature solutions on the market. They are not evaluating, and, given the current position on the Directive, could not evaluate any products against its requirements. The aspects of Codentify being used are entirely separate from the requirements of the Directive.

    In accordance with regulatory requirements, when technical specifications are determined, HMRC will ensure that any evaluation against them ensures no unfair competitive advantage or obstacles to competition.

  • Bill Esterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Bill Esterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bill Esterson on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which directorate of his Department oversaw the development of the Pubs Code.

    Anna Soubry

    The development of the Pubs Code and the appointment of the Pubs Code Adjudicator were overseen by the Pubs Code and Adjudicator Team.

    Due to departmental restructuring this team has sat within two different directorates in BIS: the Consumer and Competition Directorate (prior to July 2015 and currently) and Enterprise Directorate (from July 2015 to March 2016).

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of the planned increase in UK visa fees on the number of people coming to the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    Assessments of the likely economic impact of proposed fee changes are undertaken by Home Office economists and are published online.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-07-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, House of Lords, 9 July 2015, Official Report, column 286, what his policy is on part funding of the NHS through insurance and co-payments.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    There is no plan to change the way that the National Health Service is funded nor any consideration of changes. The Government remains committed to the principles of the NHS, enshrined in the NHS Constitution, that access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.

    The Government is also committed to working with the NHS in implementing its own plan for the future of the NHS – the Five Year Forward View – backed up by the commitment made in the Spending Review to provide an additional £10 billion in real terms by 2020-21 compared to 2014-15. This fully funds the plan.

  • Tania Mathias – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Tania Mathias – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tania Mathias on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for cyclists on UK roads.

    Andrew Jones

    Government policy is that cycle helmets offer a degree of protection for cyclists in the event of a fall from a bicycle and some types of collisions. This is in line with the Highway Code rule 59 which states “you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened”

    We encourage the use of helmets by all cyclists and in particular by children.

    However, people and parents are free to choose whether to follow this advice and we have no plans to legislate to introduce a mandatory requirement for the wearing of cycle helmets.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Sadiq Khan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many prescriptions for anti-depressants were issued in each year since 2010 in (a) the UK, (b) London, (c) each London borough and (d) each health trust in London.

    Alistair Burt

    Information is not held centrally on the number of prescription items issued. The attached tables provide numbers of anti-depressant prescription items written in England and London, and dispensed in the United Kingdom, for the available financial years 2011/12 to 2014/15. Information relating to prescriptions written in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are a matter for the Devolved Administrations.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-11-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children who received a child trafficking advocate under the trials conducted in 2014–15 were (1) UK nationals, (2) nationals of the EU or EEA excluding UK nationals, and (3) nationals of countries not in the EU or EEA.

    Lord Bates

    Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting. The evaluation report will be published by 16 December and set out the number of children referred into the trial and their countries of origin.

  • Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2015-12-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the 20 Miles More group’s campaign to extend HS2 to Liverpool.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The government recognises that Liverpool is a major city and a significant market. Evidence from Liverpool City Region has been assessed but no decision has yet been made on the Phase Two route other than the route to Crewe.

    Liverpool will benefit from day one of HS2. Phase One will cut 28 minutes from the journey time between Liverpool and London. Accelerating the line to Crewe will reduce journeys by a further 14 minutes.

    HS2 will ensure that it maximises the synergies with the Northern Powerhouse, to make the most of the two networks. In this way opportunities may be created for Liverpool to benefit still further.

  • Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tim Loughton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Loughton on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she plans to publish the findings of the review into children’s residential care undertaken by Sir Martin Norey.

    Edward Timpson

    This review is being led independently by Sir Martin Narey. The review is currently expected to report to Government in spring 2016 and its findings will be published after this.

  • David Winnick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Winnick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Winnick on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to urgently consult with medical authorities on ensuring a meningitis B vaccine is provided to all young children; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    National immunisation programmes are introduced on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the independent expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters. JCVI’s recommendations are based on a comprehensive and careful review of a wide range of evidence including information from medical experts.

    JCVI reviewed the available evidence on meningitis B vaccine and recommended a national Meningococcal B (MenB) immunisation programme for infants. The MenB vaccine is first offered to babies at 2 months of age, with further doses offered when they reach 4 and 12 months of age.

    MenB was introduced into the NHS programme in September 2015. JCVI keeps the eligibility criteria of all vaccination programmes under review and considers new evidence as it becomes available. If JCVI provides further advice about the programme, we will consider this.