UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-10-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 12 September 2016 to Question 44306 and with reference to ONS figures detailing the record amount of bonuses paid in Great Britain last year, released in Average weekly earnings, bonus payments in Great Britain: financial year ending 2016, on 15 September, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policies in curbing excessive performance bonuses; and what plans he has to tackle inequality in performance bonuses between industry sectors.

    Simon Kirby

    The UK is at the forefront of global efforts to tackle unacceptable pay practices in the banking sector and has the toughest regime on pay of any major financial centre.

    Firms are now required to have policies in place to defer, reduce, cancel or clawback bonuses in the event that poor performance or misconduct comes to light and the Government expects firms to be proactive in their application of these policies. Used in this way bonuses can be an effective incentive for staff to act in the long term interests of a business.

    The Government’s efforts have resulted in a restructuring of pay including a significant reduction in cash bonuses, and a better alignment of risk and reward in the financial sector.

    Outside the financial services sector, it is for businesses to decide how they remunerate their employees provided minimum legal requirements are met. The ONS statistics show that bonuses as a percentage of total pay for sectors other than finance and insurance have remained relatively stable since 2000 at an average of 4.0%.

    The Government intends to publish a consultation document later this year that will set out a range of options for strengthening corporate governance and the way executive pay is set and reported, including greater disclosure of the targets that trigger bonus payments to company directors.

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2015-12-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the situation in Ivory Coast.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Côte d’Ivoire has made significant progress since its 2010-2011 post-electoral crisis. Though challenges remain, there has been a sustained period of political stability and improved security, as well as increasing economic growth and investor confidence. Following President Ouattara’s victory in the 25 October elections, we hope to see the Government of Cote d’Ivoire further consolidate peace and stability, as well as re-establish the country as a high performing regional economic hub.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, on what grounds Experts by Experience was not considered under TUPE arrangements when Remploy took over its contracts.

    Ben Gummer

    The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has advised that it has taken into account the application of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in the new contracts with Choice Support and Remploy Ltd.

    The CQC issued a press release on 28 January 2016 on this matter. It advised that the CQC’s contractual discussions with Remploy Ltd and Choice Support are still ongoing. The CQC understand that Remploy has now written to Experts by Experience confirming they will pay an hourly rate of £15 for the first six months of the contract – commencing 1 February 2016.

    Departmental Ministers have not received any representations about the importance of Experts by Experience in the National Health Service or the level of payments by Remploy to Experts by Experience.

    The Department has not received any direct correspondence about the importance of Experts by Experience in the NHS or the level of payments by Remploy to Experts by Experience. We are, however, aware of one email on this subject that the Department has been copied into that was sent to the CQC.

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will estimate how many (a) people and (b) organisations will be affected by the interim guidance on the new anti-lobbying clause in government grant agreements.

    Matthew Hancock

    The information requested is not held centrally. We are currently working on improving the data collected on grants through the development of an internal Government Grants Information System. The clause will apply to all grants except in exceptional circumstances as set out at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-grants-register.

    “

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many episodes of (a) traumatic brain injury, (b) spinal injury, (c) fractures, (d) dislocated shoulders and (e) ligamentous tears were sustained in school sports in each of the last five years.

    Jane Ellison

    The Department does not hold this information.

  • Ben Bradshaw – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ben Bradshaw – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Bradshaw on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 23 March 2016 to Question 31117, whether the time period referred to when providing details of the not anticipated reduction in genital warts associated with the bivalent vaccine takes into account the impact of the introduction of the quadrivalent vaccine in 2012.

    Jane Ellison

    The findings of Kavanagh and others, 2014, and of Mesher and others, 2016, are consistent with the reductions in human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 that were expected in the assessments that informed the Department’s policies. Neither of these papers report findings about genital warts incidence, both report no decrease in HPV types 6 and 11; this is also consistent with expectations in assessments that informed the Department’s policies.

    The answer of 23 March 2016 stated, ‘data reported to Public Health England (PHE) from genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics shows a reduction in rates of genital warts diagnoses at GUM clinics between 2009 and 2014.’ This analysis has been updated with data for 2013 and 2014. The reductions reported were in patients aged 15 years and older. As the introduction of the quadrivalent vaccine was in 2012, to 12 year olds, no impact on genital warts in 15+ year olds within this time period was expected due to this introduction. Use of the quadrivalent vaccine within this age group prior to its introduction in the national immunisation programme was assessed as a possible but highly unlikely cause of the reductions seen.

    The latest data from PHE showing reductions in genital warts diagnoses in GUM clinics amongst ages offered the bivalent vaccine are data for 2014: the future duration of any protection from genital warts associated with the bivalent vaccine has not been (and cannot be) inferred.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what guidance his Department issues to inform people of state pension age of the implications for their surviving civil partner in the event of their death they are not married; and how many civil partners have been denied a claim to their partner’s pension following a claimant’s death.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Guidance on the circumstances in which the surviving member of a married couple or civil partnership may be entitled to State Pension based on their late partner’s National Insurance contributions is available on www.gov.uk.

    Information on the number of applications for State Pension based on a late partner’s National Insurance contributions which have been disallowed is not available.

    “

  • Scott Mann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Scott Mann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Scott Mann on 2016-07-21.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of replacing Vehicle Excise Duty with a roads fund fuel levy that charges motorists excise duty based upon how many miles they drive; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    No assessment has been made of a roads fund fuel levy as described by the Hon. Member. The government has previously considered calls to replace Vehicle Excise Duty with a supplement on fuel duty, but has concluded that this would not be fair. It would have a disproportionate burden on certain groups such as businesses and households in rural areas without ready access to public transport alternatives.

  • Bob Stewart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Bob Stewart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bob Stewart on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make it her policy to introduce a levy on companies employing foreign workers below an agreed wage threshold.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Foreign workers in the UK benefit from the same rights under National Minimum Wage legislation as UK workers.

    In addition, companies sponsoring non-EEA workers to fill vacancies under Tier 2 (General), the skilled work immigration route, must pay a salary of at least £20,800 (rising to £25,000 later this autumn and £30,000 in April 2017) or the appropriate rate for the particular occupation, whichever is higher. For non-EEA workers using the Tier 2 (Intra Company Transfer) route for multi-national companies, the salary minimum is £24,500, rising to £30,000 later this autumn and £41,500 from April 2017.

    From April 2017, the Government will levy an Immigration Skills Charge on Tier 2 employers of £1,000 per sponsored worker per year. A reduced rate of £364 will apply to small and charitable sponsors. PhD-level roles, intra-company transfer graduate trainees, and graduates switching from the student route will be exempt.

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps she has taken to ensure that the National Infrastructure Commission gives priority to energy efficiency programmes in its investment decisions.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Commission is already working with the Department on its study called ‘Delivering future-proof energy infrastructure’ and the Government intends to shortly launch a public consultation on how the Commission will work with different departments in the future.

    The Commission has been set up to look at long term policy and the first energy topics it will consider are interconnectors and storage.