Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • 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, whether there is an approved Final Business Case for the £600 million of further design work proposed for the Successor submarine programme.

    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.

  • James Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    James Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by James Davies on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps the Government has taken to encourage underground cabling connecting (a) wind farm and (b) other such installations to distribution centres in order to present visual amenity and prevent adverse environmental impacts.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government expects network companies to use the most appropriate technologies available to provide the required connection for the particular project in line with its customer’s connection needs, its statutory obligations to have regard to the environment and to mitigating adverse impacts where reasonable, and relevant planning requirements.

    This is reinforced by the Government’s energy National Policy Statements (NPSs) in particular NPS EN-1[1] and NPS EN-52, which make it clear that proper consideration should be given to all feasible means of connection, including undergrounding.

    [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47854/1938-overarching-nps-for-energy-en1.pdf

    [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47858/1942-national-policy-statement-electricity-networks.pdf

  • 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, to what extent HM Revenue and Customs is dependent on tobacco manufacturers for the testing illicit 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.

  • Louise Ellman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Louise Ellman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Ellman on 2016-04-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the policy is of (a) his Department and (b) the Vehicle Certification Agency on vehicle type approval engineers leaving the Vehicle Certification Agency to join vehicle manufacturers.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Central Department and the Vehicle Certificate Agency do not have a specific policy relating to staff leaving to join vehicle manufacturers. The conduct expected of a Civil Servant is written in the Business Appointment Rules, which are available online.

  • Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-05-05.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have gathered on the contribution that the 64 million new trees to be planted by the Woodland Trust in England would make to carbon reduction or capture.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Government has not gathered any information about the contribution these trees would make towards carbon reduction or capture. However, the Forestry Commission’s Woodland Carbon Code Carbon Lookup Tables, suggest that 64 million trees planted as woodland could capture 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the first 50 years of their life.

  • John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    John Spellar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Spellar on 2016-06-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to ensure that her Department’s purchasing policies support British (a) industry and (b) agriculture.

    Nick Gibb

    The Department’s purchasing policies support the Government’s commitment to do all it can to ensure UK suppliers can compete effectively for public sector contracts, in line with our current international obligations and guidance issued by the Crown Commercial Service.

  • Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Catherine West – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine West on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, how many times he has met with Didier Seeuws since his appointment to the EU special task force.

    Mr David Jones

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12 September 2016 to the Question 44967.

    The Prime Minister has been clear we will not give a running commentary on Brexit negotiations. We will ensure that we engage closely with all relevant interlocutors.

  • Paul Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Monaghan on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the parliamentary communications of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

    The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and electronic surveillance and equipment interference when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

    It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

  • Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Henry Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Henry Smith on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Attorney General, what steps the CPS has recently taken to improve its support for (a) child witnesses and (b) people with learning disabilities who give evidence in criminal proceedings.

    Robert Buckland

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to improving the ‘at court’ experience for all witnesses. The CPS works closely with the police and the voluntary sector to ensure that vulnerable witnesses such as children and people with learning disabilities are well supported through the Criminal Justice System.

    Special measures such as the use of intermediaries, using screens at court and video live links help vulnerable witnesses, including children and people with learning difficulties, to give their best evidence. Recently, the CPS assisted the MoJ in recruiting an additional 105 intermediaries, who play a vital role in facilitating coherent conversations during police interviews and at court. The use of pre-recorded cross-examination has also been successfully piloted and the Lord Chancellor has committed publically to a national roll-out.

    In September, following public consultation, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced the launch of new guidance for prosecutors entitled ‘Speaking to Witnesses at Court’. The aim of this guidance is to set out the role played by prosecutors at or before court in ensuring that witnesses give their best evidence. This will benefit all prosecution witnesses and will help them understand what to expect. These enhanced arrangements will be piloted over the coming months and will be rolled out nationally during 2016.

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the British Transport Police budget was in each year from 2009-10 to 2014-15.

    Claire Perry

    The British Transport Police’s budget for each year from 2009-10 to 2014-15 is set out in the table below.

    2009/10

    2010/11

    2011/12

    2012/13

    2013/14

    2014/15

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    269,336

    277,014

    264,728

    267,947

    285,724

    292,791