The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-05-26.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what change there was in the level of emergency admissions of older people between 2010-11 and 2014-15 in the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust.
Ben Gummer
Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, there was a 5.4% increase in the number of emergency admissions of patients aged 65 and over at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Naz Shah on 2016-07-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent representations he has made to the Indian government to ensure the welfare and safe return of British citizens affected by the curfew in Kashmir.
Alok Sharma
Our High Commission in Delhi is monitoring the situation closely. We have updated our travel advice and encourage British nationals in Kashmir to monitor it. We have not made any representations to the government of India on this issue.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the recommendation of the Independent Cancer Taskforce report, Achieving World-Class cancer outcomes: a strategy for England 2015-2020, published in July 2015, what progress has been made on developing the future shape and skill mix of the cancer workforce; and when he plans to publish a review into the cancer workforce.
David Mowat
Supported by Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support, Health Education England (HEE) has been leading on the independent Cancer Taskforce recommendation that it should work with NHS England, charities and others to develop a vision for the future shape and skills mix of the workforce required to deliver a modern, holistic patient-centred cancer service.
HEE has completed an initial cancer workforce baseline review that has been shared and discussed with key stakeholders, including the National Cancer Advisory Group, which has wide representation from cancer charities, medical Royal Colleges and others. The review is regularly updated with emerging intelligence from Sustainability and Transformation Plan areas on the workforce they require to deliver the cancer service challenge.
In addition, HEE is leading on a major piece of work to address the workforce challenges in transforming cancer services, which includes a skills mix review. It has agreed an approach with key stakeholders for the review and will be working through Local Workforce Action Boards, Vanguards and Cancer Alliances, to understand the skills mix needed for emerging cancer service models. HEE will report back on this work in March 2017.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Pritchard on 2015-11-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to ban the wearing of masks at demonstrations in public spaces.
Mike Penning
Face coverings can be worn in public places for a variety of legitimate reasons and there are no plans to introduce a blanket ban at demonstrations or other public events. The police already have powers in relation to the wearing of face masks in public order situations under existing legislation.
Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer in uniform, following an authorisation relating to a specified area for a specified time (up to 24 hours initially), to remove or seize anything that he or she considers is being, or could be, worn wholly or mainly for the purposes of concealing identity. This would include all types of face coverings.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by FALSE on 2015-12-17.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 16 December (HL4327) that we are not submitting any evidence of possible genocide against Yezidis and Christians to international courts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Government believes that recognition of genocides should be a matter for international courts. It should be a legal, rather than political determination, decided by international judges after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible international judicial process.
However, we are funding a project that is documenting sexual violence in Iraq, in a victim sensitive way. This database of cases will then be used to help survivors access justice and ensure that perpetrators are held to account. We also co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council Resolution mandating the UN to investigate and report on Daesh abuses.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Phillips on 2016-01-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 27 January 2016 to Question 23346, how many of the breaches referred to related to documents categorised before April 2014 as (a) top secret, (b) secret, (c) confidential, (d) restricted, (e) protected and (f) unclassified; and how many such breaches related to documents categorised after April 2014 as (i) top secret, (ii) secret and (iii) official-sensitive or official.
Mark Lancaster
We do not hold information centrally about when the documents were originally classified. However, the classification of the information at the time the security breaches occurred is listed in the table below:
|
Document Classification |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Top Secret |
2 |
0 |
|
Secret |
15 |
18 |
|
Confidential |
8 |
9 |
|
Restricted |
37 |
13 |
|
Protected |
0 |
0 |
|
Unclassified |
1 |
0 |
|
Official Sensitive |
18 |
43 |
|
Official |
0 |
0 |
|
Unknown |
1 |
2 |
|
Total |
82 |
85 |
These figures include all incidents involving documents in hard copy or stored on magnetic media i.e. CD’s. They include incidents involving the sending of documents over a transmission media not approved for the classification of the document.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-02-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions his Department has had with the government of Romania about the activities of (a) Central Media Enterprise, (b) Adrian Sârbu and (c) Ronald Lauder in (i) 1995 to 1999, (ii) 2000 to 2010 and (iii) 2011 to 2015.
Mr David Lidington
I refer the hon. Member to my previous answers of 14 December 2015 (PQ 18601) and 17 December 2015 (PQ 19436). The information requested in the years prior to 2011 is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what process HM Revenue and Customs uses to test for illicit tobacco products.
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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bill Esterson on 2016-04-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who will act on behalf of the Pubs Code Adjudicator in situations where one of the parties to that adjudication objects to the Adjudicator’s involvement.
Anna Soubry
The Pubs Code Adjudicator has been appointed by the Secretary of State to arbitrate alleged breaches of the statutory obligations set out in the Pubs Code. The Adjudicator will therefore be operating within the statutory framework provided in the SBEE Act and Pubs Code regulations. The parties to an alleged breach of the Pubs Code are not afforded an automatic right to object to the Adjudicator discharging what is a statutory duty. This is in contrast to the position of arbitrators appointed to deal with a private arbitration of contractual disputes.
The Adjudicator will make and publish arrangements for dealing with any conflict of interest as he is required to do by the SBEE Act [Schedule 1 para 10]. These will be the relevant arrangements for any parties wishing to raise any questions about conflicts of interest. Where the parties raise any objection to the Adjudicator arbitrating a dispute, it is for the Adjudicator to decide whether it is appropriate for him to appoint another arbitrator (as the Act allows).
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-26.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) people, (b) nominated officers and (c) other nominated officers were prosecuted for failure to disclose under Section 19, Part III of the Terrorism Act 2000 in each year since 2009-10.
Mr John Hayes
The Home Office holds data on the number of people prosecuted for terrorism-related offences under specific legislation, on a principle offence basis (i.e. if an individual is prosecuted for multiple offences at one time, only the most serious offence is recorded). Since 2009/10, there have been no prosecutions where the principle offence comes under section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Home Office does not hold data on the number of nominated officers that were prosecuted.