Emma Dent Coad

I refer the Right Honourable Member to my answer given to Question 246580 on 30 April 2019.

The Government set up the independent Grenfell Tower Inquiry to get to the truth of what happened, deliver justice for victims, survivors, bereaved families and the wider community, and to ensure that such a terrible tragedy could never happen again. The timing and handling of the Inquiry is a matter for the independent Inquiry and the Government hopes that the report for phase 1 will be published soon.

The process of identifying suitable panel members is underway. Prior to the appointment of panel members, the Prime Minister will consult with the Chair of the Inquiry and seek his consent as required by the Inquiries Act 2005. An announcement will be made as soon as this process is completed.

The meeting took place as arranged with my Rt Hon Friend the Minister for Grenfell Victims in March 2019

The independent Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry is committed to publishing its costs on a regular basis. Costs for Phase 1 will be published once Phase 1 has completed.

Under any exit scenario, shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel will continue to be supervised and controlled by the respective environment agencies of the UK when the UK leaves the EU. The UK will continue to meet its obligations for the reporting of import and export of radioactive waste under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, to which the UK is a Contracting Party, and as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In a deal scenario, the Withdrawal Agreement includes an agreement with the EU that provisions of Euratom will continue to apply in the UK during the implementation period until the end of 2020, including the movement of radioactive waste and spent fuel. If a deal is reached, future arrangements in relation to the movement of radioactive waste and spent fuel will be subject to negotiation with the European Union on our future relationship.

If the UK does not reach a deal with the EU, the Government has put in place regulations, the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) 2019 Regulations, to regulate the shipment of radioactive waste. These Regulations broadly replicate the existing 2008 Regulations of the same name and will apply the current procedures for third countries to EU member states.

We recognise how important it is that students and institutions have information on eligibility for student support before applications for courses open.

Applications for courses starting in academic year 2020/21 do not open until September 2019. We will provide sufficient notice on fee arrangements for prospective EU students (studying in England) ahead of the 2020/21 academic year and subsequent years in the future.

There is a system of international rules on waste shipments. The UK is a Party to the United Nations Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The Convention provides a global system for controlling the export of hazardous wastes and wastes collected from households. The requirements of the Basel Convention have been implemented in UK law by the EU Waste Shipment Regulations (Regulation (EC) 1013/2006) and the UK Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007. The legislation requires that those involved in the shipment of waste take all necessary steps to ensure waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner throughout its shipment and during its recycling or recovery.

In 2017 the Environment Agency (EA) inspected over 1,000 shipping containers and returned 367 of these to their site of loading. This stopped over 7,000 tonnes of waste not fit for export at ports, and they also prevented nearly 9,000 tonnes of waste from reaching ports.

As part of the Producer Responsibility system for packaging, WEEE and batteries waste streams, the EA is informed annually about the overseas sites exporters intend to use. Companies exporting to non-EU and non-OECD countries are asked to provide evidence that each overseas re-processor is suitably permitted and operates to broadly equivalent standards. Follow up assessment by the EA may include discussions with the competent overseas authority and the other devolved agencies. A list of acceptable evidence to support broadly equivalent standards has been created from this process. The list is regularly reviewed and shared externally with operators to ensure a consistent approach. As a result of our assessment, 95 overseas sites were refused approval for 2018.

The agency uses a wide range of sources of intelligence to create a risk profile of these exporters which feeds into our compliance monitoring programme of visits and desk top monitoring. In 2017, 3.9m Tonnes (around 40%) of the estimated 10m Tonnes of Green List waste exported from the UK was exported by accredited packaging exporters, and subject to these checks.

We recognise we need to do more to eliminate improperly-handled exports of wastes. Firstly, we need to grow our domestic waste industry so that we can handle more of it at home, reducing exports as far as possible. Secondly, we need to ensure strict controls are in place so that the waste we do have to export is dealt with properly.

As part of the recently published Resources and Waste Strategy, Defra has committed to reviewing the regulatory framework covering waste exports. This will review the quality of exports for recycling and ensure that exports of all wastes are recycled at sites operating to equivalent standards to those required in the UK. The review is scheduled to take place this year and will consider options for the mandatory submission of ‘Annex VII’ paperwork (details of the waste being exported and all parties involved in its shipment and recovery overseas) in advance of shipments taking place. The review will also look at any associated IT systems required and charges needed for compliance monitoring activity.

Other measures that we are developing include improved provision for waste repatriation, and charging higher fees to improve compliance. These changes aim to ensure any waste we do send abroad is fit for recycling and that it is recycled to equivalent standards as required in the UK. This should create a more level playing field for domestic recyclers as well as reducing the chances of exported waste being mishandled.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to take question 8 and 12 together.

This Government is committed to protecting the world’s rainforests. During my recent visit to Brazil, I raised the UK’s commitment to environmental protection and offered support to Brazil in the transition to renewable energy and a lower carbon economy.

We are working in partnership with Brazil and through UK Government-led programmes, investing over £150 million of climate finance in forest programmes across the country.

I was delighted that on my return from Brazil in August, the PM announced an extra £10 million in the aftermath of recent fires.

Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and delivered by Transport for London. It is a matter for the Mayor to determine how to increase step free access at Underground stations.

In the 2015 funding settlement, the Government agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession will transfer to the BBC in June 2020.

The government and the BBC agreed this is a fair deal for the BBC - in return we closed the iPlayer loophole and committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation. And to help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over 2 years to gradually introduce the cost to the BBC.

This reform was subject to public discussion and debated extensively during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017 through Parliament.

On 10 June 2019, the BBC announced that the current scheme will end. From 1 June 2020, a free TV licence will only be available to a household with someone aged over 75 who receives Pension Credit.

The table below provides estimates of the costs for 2017/18 of providing free TV licences to people aged 75 and over in the geographical areas requested, in nominal prices. The figures for 2018/19 will be available in September.

As part of the process of making a claim, all JSA (including New Style), New Style ESA and Universal Credit claimants discuss and agree a claimant commitment statement as part of the conditions of their claim.

The Department does not hold information on the reasons why a claimant commitment is or is not accepted by the claimant. Where a claimant commitment is not accepted, for any reason, a claim cannot be made, unless reasonable adjustments apply.

The reasonable requirements in a Claimant Commitment are based on the appropriate conditionality group for the claimant, and the Work Coach is able to tailor the requirements to include adjustments or easements for personal circumstances. If a claimant and their Work Coach are unable to agree on the reasonable requirements in their claimant commitment, they can request another Work Coach to review this.

Research with claimants who have recently undergone a Work Capability Assessment is undertaken by a different organisation to the provider delivering the assessments. The telephone survey is voluntary and is based on a set of questions agreed with the department.

The Department also undertakes its own survey which is designed to monitor claimant satisfaction with the services offered by the department and to enable claimant views to inform improvements to the delivery of benefits and services. This information is published on gov.uk.

The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners agreed to the revised wording of the ESA65B on 4 August 2016.

The Department is committed to ensuring all of its communications are clear, accurate and understandable and we continuously improve our letters. We engage regularly with the welfare benefits advice sector and disability charities and take into account all of the feedback we receive.

We have received comments from a number of sources including MPs, stakeholder organisations and GPs on the current version of the ESA65B letter and will take all of their feedback into account when revising it.

The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners agreed to the revised wording of the ESA65B on 4 August 2016.

The Department is committed to ensuring all of its communications are clear, accurate and understandable and we continuously improve our letters. We engage regularly with the welfare benefits advice sector and disability charities and take into account all of the feedback we receive.

We have received comments from a number of sources including MPs, stakeholder organisations and GPs on the current version of the ESA65B letter and will take all of their feedback into account when revising it.

As a responsible Government, we are continuing to prepare for all eventualities. We have put detailed ‘no deal’ contingency plans in place for the continuity of supply of medicines and medical products, continuity of reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and the health and social care workforce.

We recognise that a ‘no deal’ exit would affect a wide range of areas across the health and care system, and the Department is working hard to mitigate these risks.

We are asking the National Health Service, and everyone in the health and social care system, to continue their planning. We are confident that if everyone does what they need to do, the potential risks of leaving without a deal can be mitigated successfully.

Medicines shortages are a routine issue that the Department constantly manages. The Department works closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the pharmaceutical industry, NHS England and others operating in the supply chain to ensure that the risks to patients are minimised when they do arise.

The Department receives regular reports from the pharmaceutical industry about impending medicine supply issues that may affect United Kingdom patients. From January 2019, it became a mandatory requirement that the pharmaceutical industry must report this information to us in a timely manner. However, not all the issues of which the Department are notified will result in a medicine shortage as the supply team will work behind the scenes using a host of tools to help mitigate and prevent an issue from impacting patients.

The production of medicines is complex and highly regulated and materials and processes must meet rigorous safety and quality standards.

The Department has well established processes to manage and mitigate the small number of medicines shortages that may arise due to manufacturing or distribution issues.

It should be noted that over two million prescription items are dispensed in England every day and the vast majority are not subject to supply problems.

Our number one priority is to ensure the continued supply of medicines which is why we continue to work closely with industry and partners in the health system to help prevent shortages and to ensure that the risks to patients are minimised when they do arise.

We have been discussing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the US for a number of years as part of our continuous dialogue on security issues. The US also initiated a series of meetings on INF with close Allies in 2017 and 2018, during which we discussed the US approach and exchanged detailed information on the Russian violation and how we might best achieve our shared policy objectives.

We support the US decision to suspend its participation in the INF Treaty and start the treaty's formal withdrawal process. A situation whereby the US was fully abiding by the INF Treaty and Russia was not, was not sustainable. Following the US announcement, NATO issued a statement declaring full support for US action and urging Russia to use the six month withdrawal period to return to full and verifiable compliance to preserve the INF Treaty.

NATO Allies first expressed concerns about Russian non-compliance with its INF Treaty obligations in 2014. In the last two years, there has been an intensification of Allied activity to encourage Russia to return to compliance.

We have not discussed INF directly with Russia since the US, and subsequently Russia, suspended their participation in the Treaty. However, we and our Allies stated our shared concerns during the NATO-Russia Council in late January.

Following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) published comprehensive guidance for buildings, such as those with ACM cladding, on what arrangements and interim measures should be established where “stay put” has been suspended. The NFCC carefully reviewed its guidance and reaffirmed the principle of “stay put” where it is appropriate. Its statement on this can be viewed at http://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/Stay-Put-position.

The Home Office has no plans to commission a national review of stay put advice. However, the government recognises that questions have been raised about means of escape from blocks of flats and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has commenced a technical review of Building Regulation guidance through a call for evidence on 18 December 2018. This call for evidence identified topics which were candidates for inclusion in the review of Approved Document B (Fire Safety). One of the topics was means of escape in blocks of flats, including the stay-put approach. The call for evidence closed on 15 March 2019 and the Department is in the process of reviewing the evidence provided.

A reply was sent on 1 April.