Tag: David Nuttall

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2016-03-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy to commission an independent assessment of the effect of any new tobacco control measures on small businesses prior to their introduction.

Jane Ellison

The Department assesses the impact of all proposed measures before laying legislation using standard government methodology. These assessments are set out in Impact Assessments which are scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee before publication alongside the Statutory Instrument. Impact Assessments specifically look at the impacts on small and micro businesses. A number of the tobacco measures contain commitments to further review the impact of the legislation within five years of them coming into force.

The Department assesses the impact of tobacco control measures on an ongoing basis as it develops policy and considers new measures. In September 2013, the Department published An Audit of the impact of the Department of Health’s Regulations upon business. A copy of the report is attached. The Audit report covered all regulations for which the Department has responsibility believed to have a potential cost to business, including those relating to tobacco control. As advised in the report, there is a robust cost-benefit case for the tobacco control regulations considered and experience shows that initiatives to reduce smoking prevalence work best in combination, with cumulative effects over time.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what changes his Department plans to bring forward to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.

Jo Swinson

For the past ten months, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been discussing with industry, enforcement authorities and the fire services, a proposal to bring forward changes to the match and cigarette tests in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. We believe this would bring benefits to both businesses and consumers by reducing the levels of potentially harmful flame retardant chemicals generally used to meet the requirements of the match test, while also improving fire safety. Any such changes would be subject to formal public consultation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many prosecutions there have been for breaches of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 in each of the last three years.

Michael Fallon

The data requested is not held centrally.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many inspections each local authority has carried out to ensure compliance with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 in each of the last three years.

Michael Fallon

The data in the detail requested is not held centrally. The total number of inspections carried out by local authority trading standards across all products, which would include those for furniture and furnishings, was 9,674 in 2011.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many investigations are being carried out by the Claims Management Regulation Unit under regulation 35 of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006.

Mr Shailesh Vara

The CMR Unit aims to conduct all investigations in a proportionate and efficient manner. This means determining as quickly as possible whether a CMC under investigation is in breach of the conditions of its authorisation. If following an investigation it is clear that those conditions have been breached and there is a public protection issue, any proposed enforcement action will be expedited.

(1) 6 June 2013 was the earliest date from when the Claims Management Regulation (CMR) Unit began an investigation under regulation 35, which remains unresolved but no enforcement proceedings have yet commenced.

(2) Information is available for the period, 12 months to 18 June 2014. The CMR Unit conducted 46 investigations under regulation 35, which took an average of 5 months, 21 days before enforcement proceedings were taken, and an average of 2 months, 8 days before being closed without the requirement for enforcement proceedings.

(3) As at 18 June 2014, the CMR Unit was investigating 24 CMCs under regulation 35.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on what earliest date a still unresolved investigation by the Claims Management Regulation Unit under regulation 35 of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006 was begun; and on what earliest date such an investigation was begun but no proceedings have yet commenced.

Mr Shailesh Vara

The CMR Unit aims to conduct all investigations in a proportionate and efficient manner. This means determining as quickly as possible whether a CMC under investigation is in breach of the conditions of its authorisation. If following an investigation it is clear that those conditions have been breached and there is a public protection issue, any proposed enforcement action will be expedited.

(1) 6 June 2013 was the earliest date from when the Claims Management Regulation (CMR) Unit began an investigation under regulation 35, which remains unresolved but no enforcement proceedings have yet commenced.

(2) Information is available for the period, 12 months to 18 June 2014. The CMR Unit conducted 46 investigations under regulation 35, which took an average of 5 months, 21 days before enforcement proceedings were taken, and an average of 2 months, 8 days before being closed without the requirement for enforcement proceedings.

(3) As at 18 June 2014, the CMR Unit was investigating 24 CMCs under regulation 35.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Nuttall on 2014-06-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what average period of time is taken between the date of the opening of an investigation under regulation 35 of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006 and the date on which (a) proceedings are commenced and (b) the case is closed without proceedings being brought.

Mr Shailesh Vara

The CMR Unit aims to conduct all investigations in a proportionate and efficient manner. This means determining as quickly as possible whether a CMC under investigation is in breach of the conditions of its authorisation. If following an investigation it is clear that those conditions have been breached and there is a public protection issue, any proposed enforcement action will be expedited.

(1) 6 June 2013 was the earliest date from when the Claims Management Regulation (CMR) Unit began an investigation under regulation 35, which remains unresolved but no enforcement proceedings have yet commenced.

(2) Information is available for the period, 12 months to 18 June 2014. The CMR Unit conducted 46 investigations under regulation 35, which took an average of 5 months, 21 days before enforcement proceedings were taken, and an average of 2 months, 8 days before being closed without the requirement for enforcement proceedings.

(3) As at 18 June 2014, the CMR Unit was investigating 24 CMCs under regulation 35.