Tag: 2016

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many partnerships are in operation between UK and non-UK EU-based companies in the area of defence; and what the total value of those partnerships is.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    This information is not held in the format requested.

  • Dawn Butler – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Dawn Butler – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dawn Butler on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 20 April 2016 to Question 33501, on equal pay tribunals, how many individual equal pay claims have been brought against employers by (a) men and (b) women in each year between 2010 and 2015.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The two large multiple cases consisted of 11,585 men and 3,475 women, plus one claimant who did not state their gender. We are not able to provide further information about these cases as they have not yet been listed for hearing.

    The table below shows the number of equal pay claims accepted by the Employment Tribunal for each calendar year since 2010:

    Calendar Year

    Gender

    Female

    Male

    2010

    29,754

    4,083

    2011

    24,049

    3,647

    2012

    15,697

    4,340

    2013

    18,398

    5,039

    2014

    6,052

    1,509

    2015

    6,423

    13,312

  • Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Hannah Bardell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hannah Bardell on 2016-06-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what progress has been made in improving construction sector productivity since publication of the Government’s Productivity Plan in July 2015.

    Nick Boles

    Working with the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), the Government has identified skills, business models and innovation as the major sources of improved productivity in the sector.

    To promote increased investment in skills, an Apprenticeship Levy will be introduced in April 2017 on all companies with a pay bill above £3 million per annum. The CLC Review of the Construction Labour Model launched in January 2016, is examining the labour model in construction and will recommend measures which will help lead house-building and other construction firms to ensure they have the skills, and the skills pipelines, that they need.

    The Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020 published in March this year has a focus on smarter procurement, using Government’s position in the market to help drive improved productivity in construction and better value for the tax payer.

    Businesses need money to invest in productivity improvement, and a review of the practice of cash retention and of the effectiveness of the legislation covering construction contracts (Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996), is currently underway.

    Digital technology has great potential to drive productivity improvement through innovation in construction, and the UK is among the world leaders thanks to the Government’s support for the use and development of Building Information Modelling. In the Budget the Government announced support for the development of the next digital standard for the construction sector, Building Information Modelling 3.

  • Karin Smyth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Karin Smyth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karin Smyth on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if his Department will take steps to provide additional support for people who need to dispose of a property after the death of a relative by reviewing existing council tax liabilities.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The Government provides an exemption from council tax for up to 6 months to people who have inherited properties which are left empty due to the death of the occupier. This applies after the granting of probate, or after letters of administration have been signed. Local authorities additionally have discretion to offer discounts of between 0% and 100% for empty homes. Authorities can also defer payment of council tax until the proceeds of a sale are made available.

    The Government has no plans to change this support.

  • Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the costs and benefits of the NHS internal market; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    As with many healthcare systems worldwide, the National Health Service has employed a purchaser-provider split for a number of years, and under successive governments in order to ensure that resources are used to the maximum benefit of patients.

    A number of evaluations of aspects of this approach have been conducted, including work undertaken by organisations such as the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund. The Government remains committed to supporting both commissioners and providers to secure value by controlling costs and improving quality of care.

  • Cheryl Gillan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Cheryl Gillan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cheryl Gillan on 2016-01-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department plans to take to ensure that communities and environmental mitigation is allocated sufficient funding in Phase 2 of High Speed 2.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    In the 2015 Spending Review, the Government restated the long-term funding envelope for the HS2 programme at £55.7bn in 2015 prices. This envelope includes funding for Phase Two with contingency. We intend to deliver the most cost effective design for HS2 and ensure that the best value is achieved. We have a regime in place for delivering HS2 and managing costs which will ensure there is sufficient funding for community and environmental mitigation.

  • David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Hanson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Hanson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2016 to Question 22835, in what months the biometric passport chip reading facilities were deactivated in (a) 2013, (b) 2014 and (c) 2015.

    James Brokenshire

    For the period for which figures are available, biometric chip reading facilities were deactivated 7 times in 2013 and these occurred during the months of February, March, May & June. In 2014 chip reading facilities were deactivated 3 times and these occurred during the months of September, October and December. In 2015, chip reading facilities were deactivated 3 times and occurred during the months of February, April, and June.

    These figures should be considered against the background of the overall volume of transactions which are currently running at over 100 million per year and each of the instances has been thoroughly investigated and we are satisfied that there has been no risk to the border as a result.

  • Virendra Sharma – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Virendra Sharma – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Virendra Sharma on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the (a) policy and (b) other responsibilities are of each special adviser in her Department.

    Karen Bradley

    The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers sets out the role of special advisers and describes the range of activities they may undertake. Copies of the Code of Conduct are available in the Libraries of the House and on-line at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468340/CODE_OF_CONDUCT_FOR_SPECIAL_ADVISERS_-_15_OCTOBER_2015_FINAL.pdf

  • Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a ban on travelling to the UK still applies to US citizen Mr Robert Spencer.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration cases. As certain information on this particular case has been publicly disclosed, however, I can confirm that on 25 June 2013 the Home Secretary personally directed that Robert Spencer should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.

    The Home Secretary considered that Mr Spencer brought himself within scope of the unacceptable behaviours policy by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

  • Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Douglas Carswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Douglas Carswell on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the UK could act unilaterally to take an equity stake greater than 25 per cent in Tata Steel while being a member of the EU.

    Anna Soubry

    It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.