Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, how much and what proportion of the Government's total spending on Official Development Assistance was spent on in-donor refugee costs in financial year 2022-23; how much and what proportion of that spending was disbursed by the Home Office; if he will make an estimate of forecast Official Development Assistance spending on in-donor refugee costs in financial year 2023-24; and if he will make an estimate of how much and what proportion of that spending will be disbursed by the Home Office.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
Statistics on International Development is the official source of information on Official Development Assistance (ODA). ODA is measured on a calendar year basis rather than financial year. The latest published data is available on GOV.UK in Statistics on International Development: Provisional UK Aid Spend 2022. Supplementary Table 1 shows that the UK spent £3,686 million on in-donor refugee costs in 2022 on a provisional basis, which was 28.9 per cent of total UK ODA. Of this, the Home Office spent £2,382 million (64.6 percent of the UK's total in-donor refugee costs).
Provisional figures for 2023 will be published as normal in Statistics on International Development in Spring 2024.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-international-development-provisional-uk-aid-spend-2022
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 6 February to Question 135355 on Packaging Recycling, which specific international schemes her Department considered in developing their EPR proposal for the UK; and how those schemes are reflected in current EPR policy.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
As part of the development of our proposals for introducing EPR in the UK, we looked at many of the EPR schemes operating across the EU, with a particular focus on the systems in Belgium, France and Germany. This experience was reflected in many of the proposals put forward in our 2021 consultation and 2022 Government response, including scheme governance, the payment mechanism for local authorities, producer contributions to costs of public communications campaigns on recycling, and our decision to move to a single point of producer compliance.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 6 February 2022 to Question 135354 on Packaging Recycling, what changes were made by the Cabinet to her Department’s initial proposals for EPR in the consultation while the publication of the Government’s response was subject to Cabinet approval.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
The Government response to the 2021 consultation on the introduction of EPR was approved by the Domestic and Economic Implementation Committee. While the publication of the response was conditional upon several requirements being met, there were no substantive changes to our proposals requested at this stage.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with her cabinet colleagues in relation to concerns expressed by representatives of affected industries on (a) the potential impact on those industries of Extended Producer Responsibility (ERP) for packaging, (b) the additional costs of ERP for those industries and (c) how best to implement a transition to international best practice on EPR. including the appropriate timeframe.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
I have not engaged directly in cabinet discussions in relation to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging, however the Government Response to the consultation on packaging EPR was subject to Cabinet write round approval prior to publication in March 2022 and my officials continue to engage with officials in other government departments on policy implementation. Alongside the Government Response we published an Impact Assessment setting out the costs and benefits of the policy. We have published new guidance on ‘How to collect your packaging data for EPR’ for all UK organisations that will be affected by EPR for packaging and have also conducted several webinars to provide information to producers. The guidance will continue to be updated and we continue to work closely with industry to ensure they will be ready for EPR.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (a) what conclusions she has drawn from recent engagement with representatives of affected industries on the implementation of international best-practice Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging and (b) which specific best practice principles she plans to implement when EPR is introduced in January 2024.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
We have considered the approach of many international Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for packaging and drawn on this experience in developing our proposals for the UK. We will continue to engage with obligated businesses as we prepare for implementation and as we develop the next phases of EPR. In doing so we will continue to keep abreast of international best practice and learn from industries experience of schemes in other countries.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the backlog of unresolved Vaccine Damage Payment claims.
Answered by Will Quince
The Department is working with the NHS Business Services Authority, which has administered the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme since November 2021, to reduce the backlog of claims.
The NHS Business Services Authority has increased the scheme’s capacity with 40 named caseworkers, additional supporting staff and the appointment of an independent third-party supplier to provide additional medical assessments. The NHS Business Services Authority has also introduced time limits for the provision of records and a call back process to improve the return rate of medical records required for assessments.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, with reference to the 2022 International Development Strategy, if she will increase funding for programmes focused on delivering universal, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Answered by Vicky Ford
The Foreign Secretary has said we intend to restore bilateral funding for women and girls, which includes programmes focused on universal, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights. The FCDO is working to complete its business and country planning process as soon as possible, which will allow us to finalise budget allocations, taking account of our Spending Review settlement. We cannot comment on funding allocations until this is finalised.
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the high fat, sugar and salt regulations, whether his Department plans to publish evidence that demonstrates why sweet nut bars are set to be included in the restrictions, and why sweet nuts in bags are not.
Answered by Maggie Throup
The Government decided the restrictions of foods high in fat, salt or sugar in stores and online should apply to a specified list of categories which are significant contributors to children's sugar, salt, and calorie intakes and are heavily promoted. Products within these categories are considered less healthy if they receive a score of four or more for food or a drink product scores one or above, using the 2011 technical guidance to the 2004/2005 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). The 2004/2005 NPM is being applied as it is based on scientific evidence and provides an overall assessment of the nutritional content of products considered by balancing the beneficial nutrients of a product including fruit, vegetables and nuts, fibre and protein content against components of food that children should eat less of, such as saturated fat, sugar, salt, and calories. The categories in the sugar and calorie reduction and reformulation programmes have been used as a basis as they were formulated following research and analysis undertaken by Public Health England (PHE). The categories identified everyday foods that contribute significantly to the sugar and calorie intakes of children up to the age of 18 years old. For the sugar reduction programme, PHE held stakeholder engagement between 2016 and 2017 to inform decisions on the categories included in the programme and ensure the application of a consistent approach to businesses and products. A similar approach was used for the calorie reduction programme. The impact assessments for the promotions and placement restrictions, published in December 2020, show the overall health benefit is significant and takes into account the proportionality and feasibility of restricting specific product categories. Definitions of product categories in scope of the advertising restrictions are to be included in a consultation which will be launched shortly. |
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the potential health impact for consumers and businesses of including fruit and nut-based bars under the restrictions for high fat, sugar and salt products.
Answered by Maggie Throup
The Government decided the restrictions of foods high in fat, salt or sugar in stores and online should apply to a specified list of categories which are significant contributors to children's sugar, salt, and calorie intakes and are heavily promoted. Products within these categories are considered less healthy if they receive a score of four or more for food or a drink product scores one or above, using the 2011 technical guidance to the 2004/2005 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). The 2004/2005 NPM is being applied as it is based on scientific evidence and provides an overall assessment of the nutritional content of products considered by balancing the beneficial nutrients of a product including fruit, vegetables and nuts, fibre and protein content against components of food that children should eat less of, such as saturated fat, sugar, salt, and calories. The categories in the sugar and calorie reduction and reformulation programmes have been used as a basis as they were formulated following research and analysis undertaken by Public Health England (PHE). The categories identified everyday foods that contribute significantly to the sugar and calorie intakes of children up to the age of 18 years old. For the sugar reduction programme, PHE held stakeholder engagement between 2016 and 2017 to inform decisions on the categories included in the programme and ensure the application of a consistent approach to businesses and products. A similar approach was used for the calorie reduction programme. The impact assessments for the promotions and placement restrictions, published in December 2020, show the overall health benefit is significant and takes into account the proportionality and feasibility of restricting specific product categories. Definitions of product categories in scope of the advertising restrictions are to be included in a consultation which will be launched shortly. |
Asked by: Nigel Mills (Conservative - Amber Valley)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what progress his Department has made towards drawing up a new code of practice for direct ministerial appointments, as recommended by Nigel Boardman.
Answered by Michael Ellis
I refer the Hon Member to HCWS500.
The Government has set out that a policy statement in response to the Upholding Standards in Public Life Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the review into the development and use of Supply Chain Finance in government by Nigel Boardman will be published in due course.
Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are responsible for ensuring compliance with internal and external requirements in their departments in line with legislation, the relevant Codes of Conduct and requirements of Managing Public Money. They are supported by legal, HR and finance professionals in discharging these obligations. The Cabinet Office and HM Treasury provide a coordination role across such functions and can provide advice and guidance in specific cases.
Direct Ministerial appointments reflect the successive practice of administrations in engaging eminent individuals to provide independent views and advice to Government on specific areas. Such appointments should, by nature, be flexible to the circumstances of the situation and in line with wider public law duties. Appointments are made by Ministers. Appointees must abide by the Seven Principles of Public Life and the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, and should ensure that any relevant interests are declared to the Senior Civil Servant sponsoring their work to ensure that no actual or reasonably perceived conflicts arise.
Departments are responsible for their own transparency releases as they hold the information required to generate them and must take steps to ensure the accuracy of the information. The Cabinet Office provides central guidance to ensure consistency of information.