Tag: 2016

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-07-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the UN Security Council on setting a date for a free and fair referendum in Western Sahara with an option for independence on the ballot paper.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    It is for the parties to the dispute to agree a resolution of the final status of Western Sahara. The UK encourages both sides to cooperate with the United Nations process to reach a mutually acceptable solution that provides for the self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

  • Kevin Barron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kevin Barron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Barron on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of proposed reductions in the level of community pharmacy funding on the adequacy of provision of pharmaceutical advice and reassurance to members of the public.

    David Mowat

    The Government’s proposals for community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond, on which we have consulted, are being considered against the public sector equality duty, the family test and the relevant duties of my Rt. hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, under the National Health Service Act 2006.

    Our assessments include consideration of the potential impacts on the adequate provision of NHS pharmaceutical services, including the supply of medicines, access to NHS pharmaceutical services, supplementary hours, non-commissioned services, individuals with protected characteristics, impacts on other NHS services, health inequalities, individuals with restricted mobility and access to healthcare for deprived communities.

    An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.

    Our proposals are about improving services for patients and the public and securing efficiencies and savings. We believe these efficiencies can be made within community pharmacy without compromising the quality of services or public access to them.

    Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive. We are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared with others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

    We want a clinically focussed community pharmacy service that is better integrated with primary care and public health in line with the Five Year Forward View. This will help relieve the pressure on general practitioners and accident and emergency departments, ensure better use of medicines and better patient outcomes, and contribute to delivering seven day health and care services.

    The Chief Pharmaceutical Officer for England, Dr Keith Ridge has commissioned an independent review of community pharmacy clinical services. The review is being led by Richard Murray, Director of Policy at The King’s Fund. The final recommendations will be considered as part of the development of clinical and cost effective patient care by pharmacists and their teams.

    NHS England is also setting up a Pharmacy Integration Fund to support the development of clinical pharmacy practice in a wider range of primary care settings, resulting in a more integrated and effective NHS primary care patient pathway.

    The rollout of the additional 1,500 clinical pharmacists announced by NHS England will help to ease current pressures in general practice by working with patients who have long term conditions and others with multiple medications. Having a pharmacist on site will mean that patients who receive care from their general practice will be able to benefit from the expertise in medicines that these pharmacists provide.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with Eurostar on stopping services at Stratford International station.

    Claire Perry

    I recognise the international importance of the HS1 network in allowing high-speed rail services from London to reach Europe, whilst noting that no international services currently serve Stratford International station. Eurostar, in which the government recently sold its 40% stake, accesses the HS1 network on an open access basis and is not subject to the terms of a franchise agreement or a contract let by government. Government has no power to direct or specify that Eurostar stops at Stratford International station. A decision made by Eurostar not to serve Stratford International would be as a result of commercial imperatives and priorities, for example, the potential revenue derived from customers using the station or the increased journey time which a further stop would involve. It would not be appropriate for government to interfere with that decision-making process. I have not received any recent representations on this matter from potential or actual train operators; who in any event, should address their questions to HS1 Ltd, as the infrastructure manager, in the first instance; nor have I held any discussions with Eurostar on the matter of services to Stratford.

    Regarding any aspirations of Deutsche Bahn to commence operation of international services from St Pancras International, this is rightly a matter for HS1 Ltd as the infrastructure manager, who I understand have held discussions with a number of potential new entrants, including Deutsche Bahn. It would not be appropriate to comment on any ongoing commercial discussions between those parties.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with NATO on monitoring Russian manoeuvres along its borders with NATO member states.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    NATO constantly monitors and assesses the threats it faces across its borders. The Readiness Action Plan, comprising assurance and adaptation measures, is designed to strengthen NATO’s collective defence posture and crisis management capability and help deter Russia from hostile activity. The UK has recently renewed its call for intelligence to be shared amongst NATO members to deliver situational awareness. We are also encouraging NATO to enhance its capability for monitoring, assessing the effects of, and responding to threatening behaviour. NATO is focussing on being ‘adaptable by design’ so the Alliance is ready to face any new and emerging threats from wherever they come.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Reynolds on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether her Department is assessing potential alternatives to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme to which the Renewable Heat Incentive is linked.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Department is in the process of working with the microgeneration industry to establish the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) as a legal entity that will operate independently of the Government. There is an established process for alternative schemes to MCS to come forward through the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and equivalent accreditation bodies in the EU. For example, through this process the Solar Keymark product scheme for solar thermal products has been recognised and treated as equivalent to MCS. In addition, the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) regulations give Ofgem the power to determine scheme equivalency; and they are currently finalising this process for equivalent schemes to be considered in specific reference to the RHI.

  • 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, which Ministers were involved in the decision for HM Revenue and Customs to pilot Codentify 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 appointment of the Pubs Code Adjudicator.

    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, how many visas were processed using the priority visa service in 2015.

    James Brokenshire

    The number of visas processed using priority visa services in 2015 is shown in the attached table. This figure includes both priority and super priority applications.

    Total Priority applications resolved between 01-Jan-2015 and 31-Dec-2015 561,475
    of which Super Priority applications resolved between 01-Jan-2015 and 31-Dec-2015 9,400
    of which Priority applications resolved between 01-Jan-2015 and 31-Dec-2015 552,075

    This is provisional management information that is subject to change. It has not been assured to the standard of Official Statistics.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-07-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many women had their ovaries and fallopian tubes removed to prevent cancer in each of the last five years.

    David Mowat

    The following table provides the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) with a primary or secondary diagnosis identifying that prophylactic surgery has been performed due to a family or personal history of cancer and a main or secondary procedure of salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes) in each or the last five years.

    FCEs

    2010-11

    1,194

    2011-12

    1,348

    2012-13

    1,252

    2013-14

    1,362

    2014-15

    1,504


    Notes:

    – Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, Health and Social Care Information Centre.

    – Activity in English National Health Service Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector.

    – An FCE is a continuous period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. FCEs should not be considered a count of different patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the same stay in hospital or in different stays in the same year.

    – The following OPCS classification of interventions and procedures codes were used to identify a salpingo-oophorectomy:

    Q22.1 – Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries and fallopian tubes)

    Q23.1 – Unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of one ovary and fallopian tube)

    Q23.2 – Salpingo-oophorectomy of remaining solitary fallopian tube and ovary

    Q24.1 – Salpingo-oophorectomy NEC (not elsewhere classified)

  • Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Answer of 13 September 2016 to Question 46313, if she will appoint a new Apprenticeships Adviser by the end of 2016.

    Mrs Theresa May

    I have nothing further to add.