The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-06-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of a vote to leave the EU on policies in the Culture White Paper.
Mr Edward Vaizey
We have made no assessment. The Government has been clear about its position in respect of the Referendum.
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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-06-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what progress has been made in improving construction sector productivity since publication of the Government’s Productivity Plan in July 2015.
Nick Boles
Working with the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), the Government has identified skills, business models and innovation as the major sources of improved productivity in the sector.
To promote increased investment in skills, an Apprenticeship Levy will be introduced in April 2017 on all companies with a pay bill above £3 million per annum. The CLC Review of the Construction Labour Model launched in January 2016, is examining the labour model in construction and will recommend measures which will help lead house-building and other construction firms to ensure they have the skills, and the skills pipelines, that they need.
The Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020 published in March this year has a focus on smarter procurement, using Government’s position in the market to help drive improved productivity in construction and better value for the tax payer.
Businesses need money to invest in productivity improvement, and a review of the practice of cash retention and of the effectiveness of the legislation covering construction contracts (Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996), is currently underway.
Digital technology has great potential to drive productivity improvement through innovation in construction, and the UK is among the world leaders thanks to the Government’s support for the use and development of Building Information Modelling. In the Budget the Government announced support for the development of the next digital standard for the construction sector, Building Information Modelling 3.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether HM Revenue and Customs conducted an open tender exercise to select the Codentify system for piloting 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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-06-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the major barriers his Department has identified are to improving construction productivity; and what steps the Government has taken to remove those barriers.
Nick Boles
Working with the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), the Government has identified skills, business models and innovation as the major sources of improved productivity in the sector.
To promote increased investment in skills, an Apprenticeship Levy will be introduced in April 2017 on all companies with a pay bill above £3 million per annum. The CLC Review of the Construction Labour Model launched in January 2016, is examining the labour model in construction and will recommend measures which will help lead house-building and other construction firms to ensure they have the skills, and the skills pipelines, that they need.
The Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020 published in March this year has a focus on smarter procurement, using Government’s position in the market to help drive improved productivity in construction and better value for the tax payer.
Businesses need money to invest in productivity improvement, and a review of the practice of cash retention and of the effectiveness of the legislation covering construction contracts (Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996), is currently underway.
Digital technology has great potential to drive productivity improvement through innovation in construction, and the UK is among the world leaders thanks to the Government’s support for the use and development of Building Information Modelling. In the Budget the Government announced support for the development of the next digital standard for the construction sector, Building Information Modelling 3.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether officials of (a) HM Revenue and Customs, (b) Border Force and (c) trading standards services are being trained in the use of Codentify to authenticate 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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-09-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps the Government is taking to ensure that personal protective equipment which does not comply with the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 is not used in the UK.
Margot James
Under the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 it is a criminal offence to place on the market personal protective equipment that does not comply with the regulations or to supply any such equipment unless it is safe. Trading Standards are responsible for taking appropriate action against personal protective equipment that does not comply with the Regulations. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continues to work closely with Trading Standards to ensure that any Personal Protective Equipment on the market is safe.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the cost to the public purse is of (a) access by HM Revenue and Customs to the Codentify system to pilot its use for tobacco product authentication, (b) staff time to use that system and (c) other costs incurred through use of that system.
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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-09-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether the Government plans to take steps to incorporate into UK law the new personal protective equipment regulations.
Margot James
The new Personal Protective Equipment Regulation adopted earlier this year, will apply from 21 April 2018 and while it does not need transposing into UK legislation there will need to be implementing UK legislation to provide for enforcement and penalties. The Government will consult on these provisions in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-03-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to ensure that the Codentify system is not advantaged over other available systems in any future decision on tobacco product authentication systems to be used by his Department.
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.