Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires. The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

    The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Government has investigated the airstrikes of 3 June 2015 in al-‘Eram and Sa’da, Yemen.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Saudi Arabian authorities have their own internal procedures for investigations and they announced more detail of how they investigate incidents of concern at a press conference on 31 January. It is important that all sides conduct thorough and conclusive investigations into all incidents where it is alleged that civilians have been targeted.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when his Department plans to implement the National Screening Committee’s recommendations on introducing (a) the Faecal Immunochemical Test into the bowel screening programme and (b) HPV as the primary test in the cervical screening programme.

    Jane Ellison

    Ministers have accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) recommendation on replacing the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test with the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Following the change to FIT we expect that around 200,000 more people per year will take up the opportunity to be screened as part of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. This has the potential to save hundreds more lives by detecting bowel cancer earlier. Public Health England is responsible for the leadership of the NHS Screening Programmes and will oversee the change to the programme in partnership with NHS England.

    Ministers are currently considering the UK NSC’s recommendation that human papillomavirus testing should replace the currently used cytology test as primary screening for cervical disease.

  • Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make an estimate of the cumulative effect of the tobacco control measures introduced in the last 10 years on small independent retailers before the publication of the Government’s next smoking strategy.

    Nicola Blackwood

    Tobacco control measures are reviewed regularly, including by statutory requirement. The impact of individual measures is also assessed in advance of implementation through impact assessments which are made publicly available.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, and to what extent, the expert panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has concluded that a potentially viable pregnancy with normal karyotype can be achieved through pronuclear transfer based on the accompanying images of the relevant karyotypes in figures or other supporting data presented in Reproductive BioMedicine Online published in October.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the independent expert panel are currently reviewing the latest evidence of safety and efficacy for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer. The panel has not yet reached its conclusions. It is anticipated that the panel’s report will be published by the end of the year.

  • Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Jim Shannon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2015-10-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps his Department is taking to reduce the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

    Tracey Crouch

    The Government supports the work ofUK Anti-Doping (UKAD)whichworkstirelessly to ensure athletes and sport are clean. Throughtesting programmes, intelligence sharing with law-enforcement agencies on supplying and trafficking,and its excellentathleteeducationinitiatives,UKAD is one of the world’s most highly regardednationalanti-dopingorganisations.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have made for the capital funding costs of new fluoridation schemes.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Since April 2013 Public Health England (PHE), on behalf of the Secretary of State, has recovered the operational costs of water fluoridation from local authorities served by these arrangements. The Secretary of State is required to meet the reasonable fluoridation capital and operating costs incurred by water undertakers in England and has the power to require local authorities to make payments to the Secretary of State to meet any such costs he has incurred. There are no proposed changes to the legislation affecting these arrangements.

    Funding arrangements for the capital costs of new fluoridation schemes in England will need to be agreed between local authorities and PHE, on behalf of the Secretary of State, as part of the preparatory work before the scheme can commence.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Indian government on the recent attack on an Indian military facility at Pathawkof.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    Officials have been in regular contact with their Indian counterparts in London and in Delhi, including the National Security Adviser who spoke to the Indian National Security Adviser on 6th January. We have issued a statement offering condolences to the victims and their families and re-emphasising our commitment to work with India to counter terrorism.

  • Owen Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Owen Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Smith on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his Department’s legal costs were in the case Susan Rutherford, Paul Rutherford and Warren Todd and Appellant A v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Government has incurred approximately £50,626 in legal costs in the Court of Appeal proceedings in the case of Rutherford and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and A v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA CIV 29.

    It should be noted that this figure includes VAT where this is payable (e.g. on Counsel’s fees) but does not include costs attributable to the time spent by Government advisory lawyers on this case, as time spent by such advisory lawyers is not recorded in a manner that allows it to be attributed to individual cases.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will take steps to reduce the amount of litter on Network Rail’s land; and if he will make a statement.

    Claire Perry

    This is an operational matter for Network Rail, but I acknowledge the Honourable Member’s concerns and note the size of Network Rail’s estate. I have been informed by Network Rail that it has policies on litter removal that are consistent with current legislation and that it already takes all practicable measures within its resources.

    In cases where litter is on operational land, removal may only be dealt with when lines are closed for other maintenance activity, to avoid inconvenience to passengers and compromising safety. The company also prioritises litter clearance based on safety.

    Network Rail has a 24 hour National Helpline on 08457 11 41 41, whose remit includes handling requests from local authorities and the public, to clear line-side areas.