Tag: Chuka Umunna

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, for what reasons details of arrangements with priority investors in respect of the privatisation of Royal Mail were not published at the time of that privatisation.

Michael Fallon

The Government did not enter into any direct arrangements with investors. All institutional investors entered into agreements with the underwriting banks (the syndicate) to purchase their allocated shares at the offer price. This is standard practice and applied to all investors.

Details of individual allocations were not disclosed because all investors in Royal Mail – whether individuals or institutions – have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many vacant premises are currently located at each enterprise zone.

Kris Hopkins

More than 7,600 jobs have been created and 260 new businesses attracted to the 24 Enterprise Zones over the period April 2012- December 2013. However, I am unable to disclose zone-level information as the estimates that Enterprise Zones provide us with may be subject to local commercial sensitivities and disclosure may prejudice commercial negotiations. For this reason, it is for individual zones to determine whether they make this information available.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what incentives were (a) offered to (b) accepted by priority investors in relation to Royal Mail privatisation.

Michael Fallon

No incentives were offered to priority investors.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the extent to which firms in each region will be economically disadvantaged as a result of the Government’s decision to delay the revaluation of business rates; and if he will publish a list of firms likely to be so disadvantaged.

Brandon Lewis

The Valuation Office Agency published their high level estimates of the impacts of a revaluation in 2015 on 12 November 2012. Their analysis suggests that around 800,000 premises would have seen a real terms increase in their rates at a 2015 revaluation compared with around 300,000 seeing a decrease. A copy of that analysis, including which sectors would have been hardest hit by a 2015 revaluation, is available in the Library of the House.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many apprentices aged (a) 16 to 18, (b) 19 to 24 and (c) 25 years or over are employed at each of his Department’s executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and associated bodies and agencies.

Matthew Hancock

I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the Hon Member.

Until 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills did not keep a record of the age of internal apprentices. The table shows the age of both externally recruited apprentices since 2010 and ages of those apprentices embarking on the Departments’ internal apprenticeship programme in 2013. The 2013 figure refers to the ages of those on the Departments’ internal programme. There are no externally recruited apprentices in the 25 years or over category.

	2010	2011	2012	2013
16 to 18	0	0	0	1
19 to 24	2	1	2	11
25 years or over	0	0	0	16

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills currently has 53 apprentices. We have had 4 successful completions this year.

16 of these 53 apprentices are under the age of 21 with a further 6 apprentices under 21 expected to join the Department later in the year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of vacancies currently available on Universal Jobmatch are employee only jobs.

Esther McVey

In answering question 195183 we have interpreted “employee only jobs” as meaning “employee owner status jobs.”

Universal Jobmatch revolutionises the way jobseekers look for work and it has already helped many jobseekers find the jobs they want. It is part of the government’s plan for providing easy online access to government services for all.

Universal Jobmatch has streamlined our existing services for employers and empowered claimants to take more responsibility for their jobsearch and get more targeted support from advisers.

It does not capture information on the number and proportion of zero-hours contracts or ‘employee owner’ status jobs.

Jobcentre Plus guidance stipulates that claimants should not be mandated to apply for a job offering a zero hours contract. It also states that no sanction action will be taken if claimants refuse or fail to apply.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what (a) discussions and (b) correspondence has taken place between (i) his Department, (ii) Royal Mail, (iii) banks acting as bookrunners, co-ordinators and lead managers and (iv) priority investors since the privatisation of Royal Mail took place; and if he will publish any such relevant correspondence.

Michael Fallon

Since the Initial Public Offering, my Department has had discussions with Royal Mail in our continuing role as a minority shareholder in Royal Mail.

There has been ad hoc contact with the Global Co-ordinators primarily to help with enquiries about the IPO but no formal correspondence.

It is not appropriate to publish correspondence relating to the above on the grounds that it relates to our shareholding or has been provided to help develop Government policy and to do so would inhibit the free and frank advice or exchange of views for the purposes of internal deliberation.

This Department has not had discussions or corresponded with the priority investors.