Tag: Parliamentary Question

Baroness Crawley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Crawley on 2016-03-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether HMRC’s current pilot of the Codentify system is consistent with their obligations under the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) takes the restrictions in the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) very seriously. These require that the development, implementation and enforcement of tobacco policies as part of public health policies should be protected from the influence of the tobacco industry.

Codentify is a system, 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. The trial HMRC is undertaking is to see whether these existing codes could help officers in the field to authenticate products and help tackle illicit tobacco. No other companies currently provide such codes.

The use of Codentify by HMRC is not part of an exercise to evaluate the wider use of potential tools available on the market. Any such exercise would be undertaken in the context of the implementation of the EU Tobacco Products Directive track and trace security feature requirements, which will be implemented by May 2019 for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco.

The European Commission is still considering, with Member States, proposals for new pan European security features and track and trace systems, and has yet to determine any technical specifications. HMRC are not evaluating Codentify as a track and trace tool or potential security feature; the aspects of the system being used are entirely separate from the requirements of the Directive.

The use of Codentify is not a formal pilot and there will not be reports or results to publish. Instead the trial will identify the strengths, weaknesses and usefulness of using Codentify to HMRC as an authentication tool in the field. HMRC will review this later in 2016. Some resource has been spent providing access to the system and training officers in the use of the tool. However, this has been minimal and has not been separately identified. The Department of Health leads on public health policy and has been consulted on this initiative. HMRC sees no conflict between its current use of the Codentify system and FCTC requirements.

January 1, 2023
Daniel Zeichner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Zeichner on 2016-04-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he plans to (a) announce the criteria and (b) begin the bidding process for allocating the funding available through the Pothole Action Fund.

Andrew Jones

The Pothole Action Fund is worth £250 million over the next five years to local highway authorities in England, outside London. On 7 April the Government announced the share each local highway authority will receive from the £50 million available for 2016/17. Funding is allocated according to the size of the road network the local highway authority is responsible for.

Further details can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cash-for-councils-to-fill-almost-1-million-potholes

“

January 1, 2023
Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what monitoring her Department undertakes of the (a) allocation, (b) spending and (c) outcomes of pupil premium funding at (i) maintained schools and (ii) academy trust schools.

Mr Sam Gyimah

The conditions of grant for the pupil premium make clear that its purpose is to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. School leaders are best placed to decide how to spend the pupil premium in line with this policy and the needs of their pupils. Schools are not prevented from using the pupil premium to fund capital projects or from carrying over funding between years.

The Department for Education supports schools to make evidence-based decisions through the work of the Education Endowment Foundation, established to identify and promote effective practice in raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The Department does not monitor how Academies and maintained schools spend the pupil premium but instead holds them to account for the outcomes of eligible pupils through the publication of data in performance tables and Ofsted inspection.

Where concerns are raised about the performance of an academy then they are addressed by the Regional School Commissioner with responsibility for that area. The Department also takes seriously any concerns about the financial management of a school. We are aware of the findings of the Ofsted report on Audenshaw School relating to its use of the pupil premium, following an inspection in February 2016. We are also aware that the Hon. Member, Andrew Gwynne, has met the Regional Schools Commissioner for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, Vicky Beer, on a number of occasions to discuss his concerns about Audenshaw School Academy Trust. The Department has carefully reviewed all the information provided on this matter and has identified no grounds to take further action.

January 1, 2023

Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-07-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether the (a) minutes and (b) agendas of the Regional School Commissioners Strategy Forum are published; and if she will make a statement.

Edward Timpson

The minutes and agendas of the Regional School Commissioners (RSC) Strategy Forum are for internal use and are not published.

The RSCs meet monthly for the RSC Strategy Forum. The dates on which these meetings have taken place are as follows:

RSC Strategy forum dates

16/09/2014

14/10/2014

11/11/2014

16/12/2014

06/01/2015

10/02/2015

10/03/2015

02/04/2015

21/04/2015

14/05/2015

23/06/2015

14/07/2015

18/08/2015

09/09/2015

06/10/2015

11/11/2015

09/12/2015

13/01/2016

10/02/2016

09/03/2016

06/04/2016

04/05/2016

08/06/2016

06/07/2016

January 1, 2023

Andrew Selous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Selous on 2016-09-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department takes to ensure that benefits paid to benefit appointees are used in the best interests of the benefit recipient.

Penny Mordaunt

The Secretary of State confirms that a claimant requires an appointee if we receive unequivocal medical evidence as to the claimant’s capacity to manage their benefit claim or if, as in the vast majority of cases, the visiting officer, through a series of questions relating to the comprehension of claiming and managing a benefit award, will reach a conclusion as to their capacity to act for themselves. This is specifically a benefit-related capacity assessment and not a mental capacity assessment.

Once someone has been appointed, they will remain in that role until (a) they wish to relinquish it (b) they themselves lose capacity (c) the claimant regains capacity or (d) they abuse their position by not acting in the best interests of the claimant and the appointment is revoked. This latter requirement is stressed to the prospective appointee when the appointment is being considered and they are required to sign form BF56 to confirm that they understand their responsibilities. The Department also has a review system in place.

The vast majority of revocations of an appointeeship occur because of information received from a third party alleging financial abuse which is subsequently confirmed on investigation.

January 1, 2023
Alex Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how her Department plans to implement the Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds adopted by the Eleventh Conference if the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals in November 2014.

Rory Stewart

The UK has strict protection for migratory birds through existing statutory and policy provisions, noting our obligations under the EU Wild Birds Directive, as a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), Rotterdam, Ramsar and Bern Conventions, and as a Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia.

January 1, 2023
Byron Davies – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Byron Davies on 2015-12-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how much her Department has spent on humanitarian assistance in (a) Syria and (b) neighbouring countries receiving Syrian refugees in the last two years.

Justine Greening

In the financial year 2014/15, the UK spent just under £150 million in humanitarian assistance inside Syria and around £125 million in the surrounding region. This has provided lifesaving support and helped ensure Syrian children can remain in education.

January 1, 2023
Emma Reynolds – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Reynolds on 2016-01-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20287, when she plans to give a substantive answer to that question.

James Brokenshire

I refer the Honourable Member to the response I gave on 17 March 2016.

January 1, 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-02-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on farmers and rural businesses of poor broadband provision in rural areas.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

This Government recognises that all businesses need access to reliable, fast broadband to compete, innovate, increase productivity and have access to Government digital services. Superfast broadband now covers almost 90% of UK premises and this will increase to 95% by the end of next year as a result of the Government’s Superfast Broadband Programme and further commercial delivery. Premises everywhere including rural areas which do not have speeds of at least 2 Megabits per second are able to access a subsidised broadband service, usually delivered through a satellite connection, which can deliver speeds of 10Mbps or more.

The Prime Minister has also announced the Government’s intention to implement a new broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) and our ambition to set this at 10Mbps. This new broadband USO will give people the legal right to request an affordable broadband connection, at a minimum speed, up to a reasonable cost threshold, no matter where they live.

January 1, 2023
Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lucas on 2016-03-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 3 March (HL6266), what improvements Govia Thameslink Railway have implemented since the commencement of their franchise.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) have implemented numerous improvements since the commencement of their franchise. These include, but are not limited to:
- Extension of smart ticketing functionality meaning that ‘the Key’ smartcard is now available at an additional 80 stations, taking the total number of stations to 220;
- Oyster PAYG and CPAY has been extended to Gatwick Airport station;
- An increase in overnight services serving Luton Airport Parkway station;
- An increased number of Rail Enforcement Officers, with an additional 19 officers;
- An increase in customer information screens;
- A single source of customer information across website, app and stations;
- Access to radio microphones for all platform staff to improve information provision at stations;
- First to last staffing at an additional 25 Great Northern and Thameslink stations;
- Ordered new trains comprising 150 vehicles for the Great Northern Moorgate route to replace rolling stock from the 1970s;
- Services on the Moorgate branch in the evenings and at weekends;
- iPads for customer facing staff to improve information provision;
- 24 hour Twitter team;
In addition, the following key improvements are on course to be delivered by Govia Thameslink Railway in the coming months:
- Introduction of a new fleet of trains for the Gatwick Express – the first of which went into passenger service on 29 Feb;
- New state of the art Class 700 trains will start to be introduced across the GTR network from the spring;
- WiFi at 104 stations.
More details on the committed obligations and improvements GTR are contracted to deliver can be found in the Franchise Agreement which is available at the government website.
January 1, 2023