The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Hanson on 2016-02-11.
To ask the Leader of the House, what the average hourly earnings of (a) female, (b) male, (c) full-time and (d) part-time employees of his Office were in each of the last five years.
Chris Grayling
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 26 February 2016, to Question UIN 26973.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-03-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an assessment of the standard and level of maintenance of roads in Torridge and West Devon constituency; and what steps his Department has taken to improve the maintenance of those roads.
Andrew Jones
The Department for Transport regularly publishes Official Statistics on the proportion of roads where maintenance ‘should be considered’ in England. The smallest administrative area this information is published for is the local highway authority area. Devon County Council is the local highway authority for the constituency of Torridge and West Devon, but the Devon County Council area covers in whole or part 8 other constituencies.
For Devon County Council we are providing £42.3 million this financial year (2015/16).
Road maintenance is a matter for individual local highway authorities, such as Devon County Council, and it is for them to prioritise work according to local need.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the posts of NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan Footprints Leaders are remunerated; and how long appointments to those posts are for.
George Freeman
Being a Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) leader is a voluntary, non-statutory role. As far as NHS England is aware, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leaders are not being paid over and above the remuneration they receive for their existing roles.
The role of the STP leaders is to support the development of STPs which are expected to be submitted in July 2016.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-05-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraph 3.2 of his Department’s document, Implementing the replacement for the Horserace Betting Levy, published in March 2016, how his Department plans to use the independent report on the value of the common interest between betting and racing to inform the construct of the proposed levy replacement and recover revenues lost from remote offshore betting.
David Evennett
The rate payable by gambling operators will be informed by this independent economic analysis of the funding of horseracing and further discussion with the betting and racing industries. We will be consulting on the findings of the report with both industries within the next few weeks and intend to publish the report in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-06-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will introduce a compulsory module on understanding the needs and risks of vulnerable road users to the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence syllabus.
Andrew Jones
The Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (Driver CPC) was purposely designed so that drivers and their employers can decide what type of training is best for the individual. This flexibility ensures that personal training needs are met. Nevertheless, the Government recognises the importance of drivers understanding the needs and risks of vulnerable road users (VRUs). DVSA guidance on Driver CPC course approval therefore encourages training providers to include VRU content within periodic training courses where appropriate.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre detainees were held in the Kingfisher Isolation Unit on the weekend of 10 September 2016.
Mr Robert Goodwill
Kingfisher Unit at Yarl’s Wood is managed by Serco, the service provider, in accordance with Rules 40 (removal from association) and 42 (temporary confinement) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Detainees may only be separated from others for reasons of safety, either their own or for others, for security reasons or when an individual is being refractory or violent. There is no provision in the Rules for separation to be used as punishment.
Provisional management information from Serco shows that no detainees were re-located to Kingfisher Unit on either 10 or 11 September. There is no record of any complaints having been made by detainees alleging that they have been threatened with placement on Kingfisher Unit in connection with the demonstration on 10 September.
Detainee Custody Officers must not threaten detainees in order to manage their behaviour but may advise detainees that they may be separated if their behaviour is judged to risk compromising the safety and security of the centre, themselves or others.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-01-19.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the European Parliament’s report that 50 per cent of the EU £23 billion aid budget has been delayed or not used, and whether they plan to take steps to terminate the policy of delivering part of the UK overseas aid budget through the EU.
Baroness Verma
The report concerned was compiled by an individual Member of the European Parliament and was not an analysis representing the views of the European Parliament as a whole. It was based on a reading of reports by EU offices in non-EU countries, intended to identify potential problems at an early stage, so that things can be put right in time. In the event that it is proven that money has been wasted, we expect the EU and its audit institutions to take swift and decisive action to recoup funds and to carry out a thorough review of all its programmes to provide a clear set of actions to stop this happening again.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the estimated difference in cost between locating the Sheffield High Speed 2 station in the city centre and locating it in Meadowhall.
Mr Robert Goodwill
Analysis of the Sheffield City Region station options was published in the ‘Engineering options report; West Midlands to Leeds’ dated March 2012. This included analysis of several station sites around the city centre.
The current estimated difference in cost between locating a High Speed station at Victoria and Meadowhall is £680m. Previous work on the cost of options at Victoria and other city centre sites are not comparable to the current estimate given above. With regards to the Meadowhall station, following the 2013 public consultation, no significant changes have been made to the original station design therefore there have not been any changes in cost.
When recommending a station location HS2 Ltd. uses a number of criteria, including;
Potential options were sifted by HS2 Ltd. according to these criteria. To support and challenge this approach, external stakeholders and advisors from the Department’s Project Representative Team were involved in reviewing the process and outcomes where appropriate. Further information about the appraisal process can be found in the 2012 ‘Options for phase two of the high speed rail network’ report and 2013 ‘Appraisal of Sustainability’ report. Both of these documents are available on the government website.
Analysis undertaken by HS2 shows that the introduction of the Sheffield Meadowhall HS2 station could support up to 5,400 jobs and up to 300 residential units, while a HS2 station at Victoria could support an estimated 9,000 jobs and 900 housing units.
Finally, I can confirm that Department for Transport officials have received a copy of Sheffield City Region’s study into connectivity for a city centre High Speed 2 station at Victoria which Network Rail was involved in.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian C. Lucas on 2016-03-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department plans to close the driving test centre in Wrexham.
Andrew Jones
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has no plans to close the driving test centre at Birchall House, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham that provides car practical tests. The DVSA currently provides LGV vocational testing at our site at Llay Road, Wrexham. The DVSA is looking to move testing from this site. The site will not be closed until a suitable alternative for the delivery of LGV vocational testing in the Wrexham area has been secured.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Soames on 2016-04-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will undertake a review of the effectiveness of the operation and governance of the South East Coast Ambulance Service.
Jane Ellison
Monitor, the then independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts announced on 28 October 2015 that it was taking action against South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust after the trust ran a project between December 2014 and February 2015 that increased how long some patients were waiting for ambulances.
Monitor’s requirements included the development of three reviews; the first was a forensic review of the project itself which was undertaken by Deloitte and the report was subsequently published on 15 March 2016; the second was a wider governance review, and the third a comprehensive patient impact study which is subject to a separate, clinically-led independent review currently underway. This review is due to be concluded this summer and published in due course.
Monitor used its regulatory powers to secure the appointment of Sir Peter Dixon as the new interim chair at the trust, following the resignation of its Chair Tony Thorne on 15 March 2015.
From 1 April 2016 Monitor became part of NHS Improvement who has confirmed that it is providing constructive challenge to the foundation trust on the content of an agreed action plan and continues to hold the trust board to account for delivery of that plan via usual regulatory meetings.