Tag: 2016

  • Robert Syms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Robert Syms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Syms on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will postpone the start date for the introduction of standardised packaging on tobacco products in order to undertake an assessment of the implications of the post-implementation review of a similar measure in Australia on his policies in this area.

    Jane Ellison

    The Government has no current plans to postpone the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products. The Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 come into force on 20 May 2016. Standardised packaging is an important public health measure and any delay in implementing the policy would also delay the health benefits from accruing. The Government continues to consider relevant information and evidence on standardised packaging, including the Post-Implementation Review of Tobacco Plain Packaging published by the Australian Government last month.

  • Helen Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Helen Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Helen Jones on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps he is taking to restrict the amount that mobile telephone companies and other communication providers can charge for the provision of a Porting Authorisation Code to customers; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    Industry rules require mobile telephone companies to provide mobile number portability (the ability to transfer a mobile phone number) to customers within the shortest possible time, and the Porting Authorisation Code (PAC) must be issued over the phone, or by text message, within two hours of a customer’s request. Companies are permitted to make reasonable charges for providing number portability, but those charges should be based on the costs of providing the PAC and should not disincentivise customers from switching. In general, mobile telephone companies do not charge customers for requesting or issuing a PAC, nor for the process of switching a customer to another provider. However, some service providers may make a termination charge, if for example a customer terminates a contract before the expiry of the minimum contract term, or if the customer changes provider before they have served out any required minimum notice period for termination (usually 30 days). The Government is committed to making it easier and quicker for consumers to switch services enabling more customers to obtain better value from their mobile service provider and fully supports Ofcom’s interim findings in the recent digital communications review. This includes Government efforts encouraging industry on a voluntary basis to remove/reduce charges for handset unlocking for consumers at the end of their contracts.

  • Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Richard Burgon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burgon on 2016-06-15.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the systemic financial risk from tranching of securitised assets.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Government welcomed the development of international and EU standards to revitalise the regulatory framework for securitisation by encouraging the use of simpler and more transparent products. We agree with the Bank of England that a well-functioning and stable securitisation market will benefit financial stability and the wider economy. We support the Basel standards for securitisation, set with the intention of enhancing financial stability, which see features such as tranching and synthetic structures as being legitimate activity. We also support the need for all securitisations to adhere to appropriate rules on transparency and investor due diligence, and that they must be afforded sensibly calibrated capital requirements. Following the financial crisis it was Basel, working with the Financial Stability Board and the International Organization of Securities Commissions which, set the 5 percent risk retention standard.

    In the development and delivery of policy, Treasury Ministers and officials are in regular contact with relevant institutions, regulatory authorities, other governments, industry and other civil society groups including think tanks such as Finance Watch.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-09-12.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many officials in his Department have applied for career breaks in the last 12 months.

    Ben Gummer

    Records of applications for career breaks – approved and rejected – are not held centrally and would incur disproportionate costs to determine.

    I can confirm, however, that at 31st August 2016, 26 officials in my Department had commenced an approved career break in the last 12 months.

  • Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Nicholas Soames – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have indicated that they have non-domiciled status on their tax returns in each of the last five years for which such data is available.

    Jane Ellison

    The information requested is set out below :

    Tax Year

    Number of Non-Domiciled Individuals

    Number of UK Resident Non-Domiciled Individuals

    Income Tax Paid by UK Resident Non-Domiciled Individuals (£bn)

    Proportion of Total UK Income Tax (%) paid by UK Resident Non-Domiciled Individuals

    2010/11

    115,100

    80,900

    6.09

    4%

    2011/12

    113,200

    80,200

    6.20

    4%

    2012/13

    116,600

    81,700

    6.29

    4%

    2013/14

    118,200

    83,000

    6.56

    4%

    2014/15

    118,100

    83,400

    6.44

    4%

  • Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2016-01-12.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the five most common causes of death of children were in (a) England and Wales and (b) each London borough in (i) 2014, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2005 and (iv) 2000.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Baroness Rebuck – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness Rebuck – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Rebuck on 2016-02-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the merger of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    No assessment has been made of the merger of these two independent organisations.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make representations to the Indian government on the incidence of attacks on Christian property and families in parts of that country.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. The Indian government has a range of policies and programmes to support religious minorities. However, incidents of discrimination against minority communities in India, including Christians, do still occur.

    Officials at the British High Commission continue to discuss minority issues, including religious tolerance of Christians, with civil society, the Indian National Commission for Minorities, with Indian ministers and ministries, and with relevant State-level authorities.

  • Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    Karl McCartney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karl McCartney on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what steps the Government plans to take to ensure equality of educational attainment between boys and girls at all key stages.

    Nick Gibb

    Our goal is to deliver educational excellence everywhere, so that every child and young person can achieve to the best of his or her ability. Girls’ key stage 2 results are better than ever and their entries to mathematics and science A levels have increased by more than 12,000 since 2010. We continue to consider what more needs to be done to support equality in educational attainment, in particular the justified concerns about white working class boys.

  • Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Anne Main on 2016-05-03.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on infraction proceedings in each of the last 10 years.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Cabinet Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies have incurred nil expenditure on infraction proceedings before the European Court of Justice.

    Figures held centrally by the Cabinet Office are set out below, which show costs incurred by other government departments in engaging counsel as a result of infraction proceedings issued against the UK before the Court.

    2010/2011

    2011/2012

    2012/2013

    2013/2014

    2014/2015

    2015/2016

    2016/2017 (year to date)

    BIS

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    CO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DCLG

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DCMS

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DECC

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DEFRA

    Nil

    £1,740.00

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    £8,791.61

    £966.66

    DfE

    £780.00

    3,630.00

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DfT

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DFID

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    DH

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    NIl

    NIl

    DWP

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    FCO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    HMT (HMRC)

    £687.50

    £3,797.50

    £16,610.67

    £24,004.95

    £6,749.99

    £9,834.99

    Nil

    HO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    MoD

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    MoJ

    Nil

    Nil

    £2,520.00

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    NIO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    SO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    WO

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    *The above represents all data held. We do not hold financial records on these matters before FY 2010/2011.

    The UK has never been fined by the European Court of Justice as a result of infraction proceedings.

    Costs for departments include costs incurred by non-departmental public bodies and agencies for which they are the lead department. While some departments will have incurred ad hoc costs in the pre-litigation stage of infraction proceedings, and costs associated with the attendance of government officials at infraction hearings, the cost of identifying that data would be disproportionate.

    Departments do not quantify the cost of time spent by government officials throughout the infractions process.