Author: admin

  • Alex Chalk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Alex Chalk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Chalk on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraph 1.330 of Budget 2016, how much of the £14.5 million in grants for extending the coverage of ultrafast broadband in the South West will be spent on tackling broadband blackspots in Cheltenham.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    Gloucestershire and Herefordshire County Councils (Fastershire broadband partnership) has been allocated £2 million from the South West ultrafast broadband fund. Fastershire are responsible for setting local coverage priorities and spending funds in line with procurement rules, and are undertaking new procurements with uncommitted funding from the Phase 2 Superfast Broadband Programme to address as many as the remaining non-served areas within the two counties as possible.

  • Jo Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Jo Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jo Cox on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of the fairness of the (a) licence fee and (b) initial overcharge for those paying the licence fee by direct debit.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The BBC’s funding has been a central issue in the Charter Review process, and this has included consideration of the fairness and affordability of the licence fee, and the ways in which it can be paid. David Perry QC’s independent report on TV Licence Fee Enforcement highlighted that current payment plans, set out in regulations, inhibit the ability of TV Licensing to help those on lower incomes by offering alternative, more manageable payment schemes. The conclusions of his report have been considered as part of the wider Charter Review process, and the government’s position on these issues will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

  • David Davis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Davis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has carried out an impact assessment of airstrikes in Yemen since 2012.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has carried out no impact assessments of airstrikes in Yemen since 2012. Impact assessments are required for the implementation of domestic UK policy, not for military action abroad either by the UK or other countries.

    During the current Saudi-led Coalition operation in Yemen the MOD has monitored incidents of alleged International Humanitarian Law violations using available information. We consider a range of information from government sources, foreign governments, the media and international non-governmental organisations.

  • David Davis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Davis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether any MOD personnel have been seconded to positions in Yemen since 2012.

    Penny Mordaunt

    There are currently no Ministry of Defence (MOD) personnel in Yemen. No MOD personnel have been seconded to the Yemeni government since 2012.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the findings of the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey 2015 on dissatisfaction of personnel with service life, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies on (a) reforming service pay and (b) service conditions of those findings.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    The annual Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) is key to our understanding of how Service personnel feel about the issues which affect their lives. The results are briefed to the Defence Board and are used to shape and improve robust, evidence-based personnel policies across Defence.

    AFCAS 2015 showed that levels of satisfaction have decreased by 10 percentage points since 2011 but have stabilised over the last two years. This decline in satisfaction reflects the tough decisions made by Defence on issues such as headcount reductions and pay restraint. However, we recognise that more remains to be done, and will continue to strive to ensure that our Armed Forces feel valued and their contribution and sacrifice is recognised. This is why we continue to develop the New Employment Model (NEM) which aims to produce a modernised offer that reduces the impact of Service life on individuals and their families.

    The change to the core pay model under NEM was initiated in response to Service personnel’s criticisms of the previous pay model, recognised through AFCAS and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The new pay model is simpler, more transparent and improves the differentiation and targeting of pay. Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of NEM, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation of the new model.

    A number of other programmes were also announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, including making the changes necessary to enable our Armed Forces to work flexibly, reflecting the realities of modern life. AFCAS will be a core source of information in assessing the benefits realised through the NEM programme.

    The Department is also in the early stages of developing a new "Offer" for new joiners into the Armed Forces which will meet the expectations of future recruits. It will ensure that our future expenditure on personnel is sustainable and applied in the most efficient way.

  • Madeleine Moon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Madeleine Moon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2015 to Question 18992, on military bases: religious buildings, what recent steps his Department has taken to fully implement Parliament’s sanction of same-sex marriages.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 reflects the Government’s commitment that no religious organisation or representative will be forced to conduct or participate in same sex marriages.

    Recognising the established position of the Sending Churches which does not allow for the conduct of same-sex marriages within military chapels, I have recently directed that a pilot project is implemented to explore registering Ministry of Defence sites for civil marriages and partnerships; this includes same-sex unions. The timing of the project is being finalised but I anticipate that it will start shortly and run for a number of months

  • David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Mackintosh – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mackintosh on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his Department’s timetable is for the renewal of Trident.

    Michael Fallon

    The key elements of the UK Trident nuclear deterrent are the Vanguard-class submarines, the Trident D5 missile and the UK warhead. As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, we expect the first Successor submarine to enter service in the early 2030s. A replacement warhead is not required until the late 2030s, possibly later. Given lead times, however, a decision on replacing the current warhead may be required later in this Parliament or early in the next. While we have no plans to replace the current Trident D5 missile, we are participating with our US partners in a programme to extend its current life to the 2060s.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the implication for his policies on a future nuclear deterrent of the development of the Boeing Echo Voyager and other new drone technology.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    We dedicate considerable resources to assessing these emerging capabilities. Despite potential advancements in technology the detection of submarines will remain extremely difficult. It would not be appropriate to go into specific detail of the steps taken to mitigate against these threats but we assess that our current and future submarine fleet remains safe and secure.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to his Department’s press release, A new pay model for the Armed Forces, published on 7 January 2016, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the reformed pay structure on the number of complaints about terms and conditions received through the service complaints process.

    Mark Lancaster

    The changes associated with the new Armed Forces pay model have been extensively communicated, both prior to and since their announcement in January. These communications are expected to address a significant proportion of the questions and concerns that might otherwise have been raised as service complaints. Whilst it is impossible to predict how many service complaints might be raised, planning is in place for a means of dealing with them if they do arise in volume in a way that is fair, effective and efficient and does not overwhelm the system.

  • Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kirsten Oswald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsten Oswald on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what criteria his Department uses to determine links between cancer experienced by a current or former member of the armed forces and exposure to chemicals during periods of service.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) provides no-fault compensation for members of the Armed Forces where illness, injury or death is caused by service from 6 April 2005 under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) and, before that date, under the War Pensions Scheme (WPS).

    Any disablement, injury or illness, including cancer, can be claimed with awards made where the claimed disorder is accepted as being due to service. Lay and scheme medical advisers work together and decisions are evidence based, reflecting the individual case facts, contemporary medical understanding of causation and the relevant law.

    Awards under the WPS depend on the assessed level of disablement with the method of assessment set out in the legislation and expressed as a percentage. The AFCS is tariff based. The legislation includes nine tables of injuries and disorders with associated tariff levels, relevant to military service. A lump sum is paid for pain and suffering taking account of the likely progress of the condition over the person’s lifetime. There are fifteen tariff levels and, for the more serious disorders like cancer, a Guaranteed Income Payment to cover reduced civilian employability is paid, in addition, from the date of claim for life.

    Where negligence exists on the part of the MOD, Service personnel may make a claim for damages under common law for service after May 1987. Awards are determined by common law principles which, broadly, take into account, as appropriate, an individual’s pain and suffering, degree of injury, past and future financial losses and level of care required. Levels of compensation which include these elements can vary depending on an individual’s circumstances.