Category: Speeches

  • FALSE – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    FALSE – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    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.

  • Stephen Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stephen Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    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.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    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.

  • 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, 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.

  • 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, 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).

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    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.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-07-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will instigate an inquiry into the past management of the South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Department’s attention was first drawn to issues in relation to South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAMB) NHS Foundation Trust’s NHS 111 service in autumn 2015.

    In March 2015, NHS England convened a risk summit meeting involving all partners following the suspension by SECAMB of their unofficial call-handling project. NHS England commissioned an external investigation which was published on 5 November 2015, while an initial report was shared with families involved with the SECAMB’s project in September 2015.

    Monitor, the then independent regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (now part of NHS Improvement), announced on 28 October 2015 that it was taking action against SECAMB. Monitor’s requirements included the development of three reviews. The first; a forensic review of the project itself undertaken by Deloitte was published on 15 March 2016. Second, the Trust has commissioned an independent expert to lead a patient impact review following the call-handling project, which will be finalised shortly. Third, the Trust is required to undertake a full governance review and this will take place once the substantive board is in place.

    In the meantime NHS Improvement are working closely with the Trust to support it in addressing known governance, operational and quality issues.

    The Government has no plans to set up an inquiry.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Brendan O’Hara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Brendan O’Hara on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will take immediate steps to reopen consular facilities in Malawi to enable Malawian nationals to obtain UK visas in that country.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI), an operational command of the Home Office, has responsibility for running the UK’s visa service.

    In Malawi, UK visa applications can be made through the Visa Application Centre in Lilongwe, which is open five days a week. UKVI has no plans to change its current operating model.

  • Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame Morris on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospitals in England treat arteriovenous malformations and pituitary ademomas with stereotactic radiosurgery.

    Jane Ellison

    There are eight hospitals which currently treat cerebral arteriovenous malformations.

    There are 10 hospitals which currently treat pituitary adenomas. This condition falls within the definition of a Tier 2 service in the new service model. It will, therefore, continue to be treated by a range of hospitals across the country.

  • Lord Greaves – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Greaves – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-11-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislation the National Infrastructure Commission currently operates; whether the National Infrastructure Commissioners are being paid allowances or expenses for their work; and if so, on what basis, and how much.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The National Infrastructure does not currently operate under any legislation, but it will be legislated for when parliamentary time allows. Commissioners are being reimbursed all reasonable expenses properly and necessarily incurred in respect of their appointments. They are paid allowances in line with similar government positions.