Tag: Paul Flynn

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for projects supported by State Aid agreements of the UK leaving the EU.

Anna Soubry

The Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed European Union.

As required by the EU Referendum Act 2015, the Government is committed to producing clear information, ahead of the Referendum, on: the outcome of the renegotiation, rights and obligations in European Union law, an assessment of alternatives to membership, and the process for leaving.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-03-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many instances of adverse reactions have been reported under the Yellow Card Scheme; and what the nature of the reaction reported was in the case of (a) dabigatran, (b) rivaroxaban and (c) apixaban.

George Freeman

Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are collected by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Commission for Human Medicines through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme. The scheme collects suspected ADR reports from the whole of the United Kingdom in relation to all medicines and vaccines. Reporting to the Yellow Card Scheme is voluntary for healthcare professionals and members of the public. There is also a legal obligation for pharmaceutical companies to report all serious ADRs for their products that they are aware of.

The table below provides the number of UK suspected spontaneous ADR reports received via the Yellow card Scheme in association with each drug substance as requested.

The information in the table shows the number of UK spontaneous suspected ADR reports in association with Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban and Apixaban up to and including 7 March 2016.

Drug substance	Number of reports
Dabigatran	1,552
Rivaroxaban	3,291
Apixaban	900

A full list of the type and number of reactions, broken down by the reaction term, is publically available for each medicine on the MHRA website. It is important to note that Yellow Card reports are not proof of a side effect occurring due to the medicine but only a suspicion by the reporter that the medicine may have caused the side effect. Yellow Card reports may therefore relate to true side effects of the medicine, or they may be due to coincidental illnesses that would have occurred in the absence of the medicine.

Dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban are anticoagulant medicines used to prevent or treat blood clots. The most commonly reported adverse reaction for all three medicines is gastrointestinal haemorrhage or bleeding, which is in keeping with the known anticoagulant effects of these medicines. Other relatively commonly reported suspected adverse reactions include bleeding at other sites of the body, gastrointestinal symptoms (such as nausea, pain and diarrhoea), anaemia, and rash. These adverse reactions are described in the product information, in both the Patient Information Leaflet for patients and the Summary of Healthcare Products for healthcare professionals.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-04-08.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph A.23 of the Economic and fiscal outlook of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Cm 9212, published in March 2016, what steps he has taken to increase HM Revenue and Custom’s yields from tax repatriation from British overseas territories.

Mr David Gauke

The Government is absolutely committed to exposing and acting on financial wrongdoing and we relentlessly pursue tax evaders.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought in more than £2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010 and the government has repeatedly strengthened our powers so we can take even tougher action against those who try to cheat the honest majority by hiding their money in offshore tax havens.

The Government has led a transformation in global tax transparency which, from this year, will see HMRC start to automatically receive offshore account and trust data from more than 90 countries, including British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. This will further increase HMRC’s ability to crack down on those still hiding their money offshore.

The Government is further pushing for full and effective transparency for UK law enforcement to have access to beneficial ownership information of companies from all its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

The Government has also introduced tough new powers and game-changing measures to tackle offshore and onshore tax evasion, and as recently as the summer Budget 2015 gave HMRC an additional £800 million to invest in compliance and tax evasion work.

This is expected to recover £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years and includes tripling the number of criminal investigations that HMRC can undertake into serious and complex tax crime, focusing particularly on wealthy individuals and corporates, with the aim of achieving 100 prosecutions a year by the end of the Parliament.

The new powers and measures include:

• Higher financial penalties for those hiding money and other assets offshore, such as, for the first time, linking the penalty to the value of the asset kept offshore. These are in addition to existing measures which already allow for fines of up to 300% of any tax found to have been evaded offshore.

• New civil penalties for those who deliberately enable offshore evasion so they will face the same penalty as the tax evader.

• Public naming of both evaders and those who enable evasion.

• A new criminal offence for corporations that fail to prevent their representatives from facilitating tax evasion. The new offence, which will be legislated for this year, will ensure that corporations exercise due diligence over the services they provide, and ensure that those who don’t can be held to account.

• A new strict liability criminal offence for offshore evasion, which we are currently legislating for – so in the worst cases it’s no longer possible to plead ignorance in an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-04-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Defence Attaché and Loan Service Centre was established; how many staff that Centre employs; and what that Centre’s budget is for 2016-17.

Mr Julian Brazier

Staff for the Defence Attache and Loan Service Centre (DALSC) were recruited from January to March 2016. The Centre opened for limited operations on 4 April 2016, supporting 75 defence section staff currently undertaking language training or preparation for deployment. In the first quarter of 2017 the DALSC is expected to be at full capability. The Centre will then also provide support to Loan Service personnel.

The DALSC employs 14 staff and, when running fully in 2017, their annual operating costs will be approximately £1.2 million. The establishment of the DALSC represents early progress against a Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 deliverable.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-05-19.

To ask the Prime Minister, whether he invited the President of Panama and the Prime Minister of the British Virgin Islands to attend the Anti-Corruption Summit held in London on 12 May 2016; and what criteria he used in deciding which political leaders to invite.

Mr David Cameron

The Anti-Corruption Summit was the first of its kind, bringing together world leaders and anti-corruption champions in business and civil society. 44 countries and seven international organisations attended, including 11 heads of state or government and the heads of the World Bank, IMF and UNDP. Leaders from those Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories that had agreed to automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information were among those invited.

We agreed a Global Declaration, a Summit Communique and a set of country statements with ambitious commitments to expose, punish and drive out corruption. These are published on the gov.uk website.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-10-07.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans he has to match the level of funding for Wales that is provided by the EU.

Mr David Gauke

The UK Government will guarantee EU funding for structural and investment fund projects in Wales, including agri-environment schemes, signed before we leave the EU. It will be for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of which projects should be pursued in areas of its competence, and this guarantee will apply to any such projects. The agricultural sector in Wales will receive the same level of funding that it would have received under Pillar 1 of CAP until the end of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework in 2020.

As a result of these steps taken by the UK Government, individuals and organisations in receipt of EU funds now have a greater degree of certainty about funding over the coming years. The UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to consider future funding arrangements for once the UK has left the EU.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has had discussions with suppliers other than Statens Serum Institut to procure the BCG vaccine.

George Eustice

My officials have had initial discussions with other potential suppliers of BCG vaccine about the possibility of future supply

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2015-11-02.

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what discussions he has had with the International Network for Government Science Advice on improving scientific advice within UK Departments of State based on best practice worldwide.

Matthew Hancock

In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of ministerial discussions are not normally disclosed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2015-11-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 2 November 2015 to Question 13044, what the (a) technical, (b) regulatory and (c) contractual reasons were for delays at (i) Olkiluoto 3 and (ii) Flamanville 3 reactors.

Andrea Leadsom

The causes of the delays at Olkiluoto 3 include complex contractual structures and a series of design changes suggested by the local regulator after the start of construction. Hinkley Point C will commence construction with a more mature design. Our different regulatory regime and improved contracting arrangements will ensure that issues will not arise in the UK.

Flamanville 3 has experienced delays as a result of changes to the design after the start of construction, changes to regulatory requirements, including modifications to take account of lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima in 2011, and quality problems with key components. In the UK, responsibility for delivery and compliance with regulatory requirements lies with EDF and its co-investors. The shareholders in the project carry the full construction risk.

EDF Energy, overseen by the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation, will apply any relevant lessons learned and ensure the delivery of high standards of nuclear safety for its new nuclear power plants in the UK.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November 2015 to the President of the European Council, whether the Government has conducted (a) an environmental impact assessment, (b) a sustainability assessment and (c) a carbon emissions assessment of his proposals for a new settlement for the UK in a reformed EU.

George Eustice

The Prime Minister has written to the President of the European Council setting out the areas where he is seeking reforms to address the concerns of the British people over our membership of the EU. As the Prime Minister said in his letter, reform in these areas would address the UK’s concerns and provide a fresh and lasting settlement for our membership of the European Union.