Tag: 2016

  • Nick Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Nick Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Smith on 2016-05-04.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what proportion of dairy products procured for (a) his Department and (b) 10 Downing Street was sourced from British producers in the latest period for which figures are available.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Prime Minister’s Office is an integral part of the Cabinet Office.

    The Cabinet Office adheres to the Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services which are mandatory for central Government and its executive agencies, ALBs, NDPBs etc. This is supported in the DEFRA Business Plan to drive sustainable food procurement by the Government and the public sector.

    The Government Buying Standards on Food and Catering can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418072/gbs-food-catering-march2015.pdf

    Dairy products in Cabinet Office buildings are supplied by the department’s facilities management providers and they have confirmed that at least 85% were sourced from British producers in 2015/16.

    “

  • Toby Perkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Toby Perkins – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Toby Perkins on 2016-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assurances she has received from Natural England that the system of wildlife licences provides adequate protection for red squirrel species.

    Rory Stewart

    The red squirrel is one of the UK’s most threatened native mammals, predominantly due to the threat posed by non-native grey squirrels, which out-compete red squirrels and spread the squirrel pox virus which is deadly to reds.

    It is a priority for Natural England to prevent the release of any such non-native species that might have a negative impact on our native fauna and flora.

    Natural England’s policy, therefore, is to not issue licences to release grey squirrels in counties or areas where red squirrels are, or may be, still present. Outside of those areas, licences are currently only issued for the re-release (within 1km of their point of capture) of rehabilitated animals that were originally taken from the wild for tending or treatment, or for immediate release of individuals at the same location from physical entrapment.

    A list of species of Union concern, identified under the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1143/2014, will be coming into force later this year and will impose restrictions on the keeping, breeding, sale, transporting and release of 37 listed plants and animals, including the grey squirrel. Once this happens there may be a need to consider changes to the way Natural England licenses the keeping and release of these species. As a consequence Natural England is limiting grey squirrel licences to one year only.

  • Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Margaret Ritchie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Ritchie on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps his Department is taking to improve security measures at sites containing nuclear waste.

    Jesse Norman

    Security of nuclear waste is a high priority for the Government, and the Office for Nuclear Regulation provides independent assurance that materials are kept safely and securely. The spending review settlement for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority also supports continuing investment in security infrastructure. However the Government does not comment on security measures at nuclear sites.

  • Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2016-10-21.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on basic rate taxpayers who drive low and ultra-low emission company cars of proposals contained in the HM Revenue and Customs’ consultation on salary sacrifice for the provision of benefits in kind.

    Jane Ellison

    The Government has recently consulted on proposals to limit the range of benefits in kind, such as company cars, that attract income tax and National Insurance Contributions advantages when they are provided as part of salary sacrifice arrangements. Responses have been received from a wide range of interested parties and the Government’s response will be published in due course.

    The Government is committed to encouraging company car drivers to take-up the driving of ultra-low emissions vehicles. A separate consultation published on 10 August sets out proposals to incentivise the take up of low and ultra-low emissions company cars.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what debt, if any, they have that dates from before 1 January 1901; and what are the arrangements for payment of that debt.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The government has redeemed all gilts issued before 1 January 1901. On 5 July 2015, the government redeemed all outstanding undated gilts, some of which pre-dated 1901. These were the 2½% Annuities, 2¾% Annuities and 2½% Consolidated Stock, first issued in 1853, 1884 and 1888 respectively.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what changes to operating arrangements were made as a result of the decision to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials to ensure that relevant information is available to emergency services in the event of an accident.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • 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 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent progress his Department has made on the (a) composition and (b) operation of the individual funding requests screening process; and if he will make at statement.

    George Freeman

    NHS England has advised that updated standard operating procedures for NHS England’s management of individual funding requests was published on 26 February 2016 and is available at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/policies/gp/

    Clinical commissioning groups are responsible for managing their own individual funding requests.

    “

  • Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Monaghan on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make it his policy to end arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The UK Government takes its arms export responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application. A licence will not be issued for any country, including Saudi Arabia, if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the mandatory Criteria.

    The Government is satisfied that extant licences for Saudi Arabia are compliant with the UK’s export licensing criteria.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many staff of HM Revenue and Customs have had the power of arrest in each year since 2009-10.

    Mr David Gauke

    The number of HM Revenue & Customs officers with the power of arrest is constantly fluctuating and it is not possible to give figures for each year from 2009-10. The total number of officers recorded as having powers of arrest in April 2016 was 1449.

  • Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Louise Haigh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2016-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the capping of payments to NHS agency staff on levels of patient safety.

    Alistair Burt

    Patient safety continues to be paramount and the rules include a ‘break glass’ provision for trusts should there be a need to pay in excess of the agency price caps for patient safety reasons. Trust boards are responsible for monitoring the impact of price caps and ensuring patient safety. More broadly, the Care Quality Commission Chief Inspector of Hospitals has been clear that he wants to see fewer agency staff because of the patient safety implications – continuity of care being so important to good services for patients.