Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Fiona Bruce – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Answer of 11 March 2016 to Question 29747, whether any of the correspondence cited in the oral contribution of the Lord Patel on 24 February 2015 had been given unredacted to concurrently serving members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority executive.

    Jane Ellison

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that wider disclosure of the content of the personal email exchange between Professor Grifo and a member of the expert panel convened by the Authority would not breach patient confidentiality. The HFEA has previously advised that the relevant expert panel member contacted Professor Grifo in a personal capacity following the third Scientific Review of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease in 2014.

    The HFEA has also advised that the information in question was provided in confidence to the expert panel convened by the Authority. Members of the HFEA Executive who provided administrative support to the work of the panel have seen this information.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to participate in the conference about the attacks on Yazidis, Christians and others by ISIS organised by the US State Department in Washington DC on 29 July; if so, who will represent them and whether whilst attending that conference they will explain why they have not supported the genocide declarations passed by the House of Commons and the US Congress.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The UK will attend the State Department Consultation on Threats to Religious and Ethnic Minorities under Daesh on 28 and 29 July. It will be represented by a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The consultation will be used to discuss what countries are doing to protect minorities under Daesh and what more can be done. As the Foreign Secretary, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Johnson) made clear during his visit to Washington on 21 July, the Government is fully committed to working with international partners to ensure Daesh is held to account for its crimes.

  • Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Tom Blenkinsop – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the relationship between the use of (a) illegal drugs and (b) legal high in prisons and incidents of violence against prison staff.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Prisons should be places of safety and reform. Improving safety and decreasing violence is an urgent priority for the Government.

    The increase in psychoactive substances in prisons has contributed to a rise in prison violence, making offenders more volatile and their reactions more difficult to judge and manage.

    We have introduced legislation to restrict the supply and possession of psychoactive substances in prisons, and put in place new penalties for possession of a psychoactive substance in custody. Following a successful trial in 34 prisons over the summer, we have introduced an innovative new programme of mandatory drug testing for psychoactive substances in all prisons.

    We will be setting out our plans for prison safety and reform in more detail, including our plans to reduce prison violence, in a White Paper in the coming weeks.

  • Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame Morris on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the average cost to the NHS is of educating and training a junior doctor.

    Ben Gummer

    The Department does not hold information on the average cost to the taxpayer of training someone to become a junior doctor.

    The Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of Kent estimates within their report ‘Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2014’, published in March 2014, that the average cost in 2013/14 of training to become a general practitioner is £485,390, with the consultant training cost being £726,551. These figures reflect the pre-registration costs of tuition, living expenses/lost production and clinical placements and the post-graduate costs of tuition and replacement costs not the average cost to the taxpayer.

  • Lord Pendry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Pendry – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support and promote the Erasmus+ programme, which aims to boost skills and employability through education, training and sport.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The Erasmus+ programme enables organisations and citizens to achieve their potential through international education, training and sport opportunities.

    A body called the National Agency (a consortium of the British Council and Ecorys UK) deliver the Erasmus+ programme in the UK. The Government supports the National Agency’s delivery, aligns the programme with Government objectives, and represents the UK in European meetings on Erasmus+. The National Agency has a communications team that is dedicated to raising awareness of the Erasmus+ programme. The Government does not duplicate this work.

  • Kirsten  Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many staff vacancies there are at the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the level of those vacancies on (a) staff workloads, (b) staff morale and (c) relations between staff and management.

    Andrew Jones

    The planned target for staff numbers, published in the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency business plan, is no more than 4470 full time equivalent (FTE) staff by 31 March 2016. The DVSA FTE as at 30 November was 4,396.59 with a difference of 73.41 FTE (vacant posts).

    DVSA is aware that the level of change ongoing within the agency may have impacted on staff, their workloads and their relationships with management.

    A) The select use of temporary promotion and contingent labour has mitigated most of the impact on the workload of staff.

    B) While the results of the recent Civil Service staff engagement survey has shown that staff morale is lower than in previous years, this cannot clearly be linked to the level of vacancies. DVSA has been through a period of significant change which Senior Management believe is more likely to have had an impact on morale. A number of initiatives are being put in place to address levels of staff engagement and morale.

    C) The Civil Service staff engagement survey did show that relations between managers and staff at the local level were good. However, staff were less content with managers at senior levels who were more likely to be associated with issues of concern to many staff, such as the merger, restructuring and modernised terms and conditions.

  • 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.

  • 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 recent assessment his Department has made of the time taken for patients outside London to receive stroke rehabilitation treatment.

    Jane Ellison

    Although the Government has made no assessment of the time taken for patients outside London to receive stroke rehabilitation treatment, the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) has collected data over the last three years on the rehabilitation that stroke patients get in hospital and in the community in England. This data includes information on time to first assessment for rehabilitation and treatment. The SSNAP reports are available at:

    https://www.strokeaudit.org/results/PostAcute.aspx