Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Blenkinsop on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average Fire and Rescue response times were to incidents in (a) England, (b) the North East, (c) Redcar and Cleveland and (d) Middlesbrough in each of the last five years.

    Brandon Lewis

    National Statistics on Fire and Rescue response times are published annually, including response times for other types of fire incident. The most recent publication, for 2014/15, was published in 2015 and can be found here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fire-incidents-response-times-england-2014-to-2015

    Accompanying data tables can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/fire-statistics-data-tables

    The next publication on fire and rescue response times for 2015/16 is due for release in late 2016.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gregory Campbell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will hold discussions with the devolved administrations on sharing best practice on steps to reduce (a) self-harm and (b) suicide rates.

    Alistair Burt

    Departmental officials are in regular contact with colleagues in devolved administrations, sharing best information on suicide and self-harm prevention around cross-cutting issues.

  • Lord Pendry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Pendry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2015-11-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much funding they provide for (1) research and development in new technologies to monitor inactivity, and (2) evaluating the impact of local programmes to tackle inactivity.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The usual practice of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and of the Medical Research Council (MRC) is not to ring-fence funds for expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available.

    Public funders including the NIHR, the MRC, other Research Councils and Innovate UK fund a wide range of research relating to monitoring of physical activity/inactivity and the development and evaluation of interventions to support and encourage healthy behaviours including physical activity.

    For example, the NIHR has recently funded a £0.8 million trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Football Fans in Training (FFIT) – a group-based, weight management and healthy living programme delivered by community coaches. The report of the study has been published in the NIHR Journals Library and is attached.

  • 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 representations he has received on international services stopping at Stratford International station; and if he will make a statement.

    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.

  • Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kate Hollern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hollern on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Strategic Defence and Security Review, what the stages will be in the staged investment programme for the Successor submarine programme; and what the estimated timetable for each of those stages is.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    In line with normal Ministry of Defence processes, a business case for the additional investment referred to in the Strategic Defence and Security Review is going through the formal approvals process.

    Options for the subsequent investment stages, including scope, time and cost are currently under consideration.

  • 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, if she will ensure that all standards explicitly linked to the Renewable Heat Incentive are non-commercialised and publicly available to all relevant parties who may wish to offer services related to the implementation of that initiative.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Department is currently working with industry to establish the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) as a legal entity. The accessibility of MCS standards referenced in the RHI regulations will be considered as part of that process to ensure that those standards which are mandatory for the purpose of the RHI remain publicly available.

  • 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, for what (a) policy and (b) operational reasons HM Revenue and Customs decided 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.

  • Derek Twigg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Derek Twigg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Derek Twigg on 2016-04-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the vacancy rate is for spinal surgery specialists in England.

    Ben Gummer

    The vacancy rate for spinal surgery specialists in England is not collected.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust’s proposal for collaboration between the NHS and Vertex to widen access to the treatment Orkambi on the treatment of the patients with that disease.

    George Freeman

    The Department has received the Cystic Fibrosis Trust’s proposals for an arrangement that would potentially allow access to Orkambi (lumacaftor in combination with ivacaftor) as part of a Managed Access Scheme in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) appraisal of Orkambi.

    I have encouraged the Trust and the manufacturer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, to engage with NICE to consider whether there remains scope for this, or any other, proposal to be taken into account in its appraisal and the Department is also engaging with the manufacturer directly on this matter.

  • Lord Steel of Aikwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Steel of Aikwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Steel of Aikwood on 2016-07-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will support the resolution from Mauritius at the forthcoming UN General Assembly calling for the matter of the resettlement of Chagos islanders to be referred to the International Court of Justice.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are not aware of any plans by Mauritius for a resolution at the next UN General Assembly regarding the resettlement of Chagos islanders to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICC). On 17 May the Prime Minister of Mauritius expressed to the Mauritian Parliament his intention to seek a referral by the UN General Assembly to the ICC this autumn, in order to obtain an advisory opinion in relation to sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). We would not support any such resolution as we are in no doubt about British sovereignty over BIOT.