Tag: Kevin Brennan

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-28.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government’s proposals to cap public sector exit payments will explicitly exclude those workers who are retiring due to ill-health.

Greg Hands

The Government consulted on implementing a public sector exit payment cap in July 2015. The Government response to this consultation was published on 16 September 2015. This response provides detail on which organisations and types of payments the Government intends to capture within the scope of the public sector exit payment cap. This accords with the Government’s manifesto commitment to end tax payer funded six figure payoffs for public sector workers.

The response document can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464367/Public_sector_exit_payments_response.pdf

The exit payment cap will apply to payments made as a result of an employee leaving their employment. It will not affect any pension a person has earned through their years of service or have any impact on accrued pension rights or pension lump sum entitlements on retirement. It will capture contributions, made by the employer, to fund early access to an unreduced or partially reduced pension. This is because such costs are ultimately funded by the tax payer.

The Government has been clear that early retirements relating to ill health are outside the scope of the cap and will not be affected. Additionally, any payments directed by a Court or Tribunal will not be included in the scope of the cap.

Exits on compassionate grounds are not such a clearly defined concept as exits related to ill health or redundancy. There will generally be a large degree of employer discretion on the terms of such exits, and on any payments. In these cases there will be discretion available to relax the cap in individual cases, subject to relevant Ministerial or local council approval, as will be set out in further detail in forthcoming Treasury guidance and directions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-02-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether his proposals for the extension of Sunday trading hours has passed the family test.

Anna Soubry

The Government’s Family Test is not a pass or fail measure.

The Government has conscientiously considered the impact on families and the evidence on this presented during the consultation. The Government will publish the Impact Assessment, including the Family Test, shortly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the running costs were for the 56 capital based science projects which his Department has funded for each year since 2007, referred to in the NAO Report entitled BIS’s capital investment in science projects, HC 885, published on 10 March 2016; and what the projected running costs for those projects are for each year to 2020-21.

Joseph Johnson

Running costs for 2014-15 for the 56 projects are given in Appendix 3 of the NAO Science Capital report where facilities are operational. These figures come from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and its Partner Organisations and provide an indication of annual running costs of these projects.

Project level management and allocation of funding for the majority of ongoing science projects is done at Partner Organisation level, in accordance with the delivery responsibilities of the Partner Organisations BIS funds. BIS does not hold this level of information centrally and it would not be possible to collect this information for each of the years since 2007, and estimates for future years, without disproportionate cost. However, the Government has protected the science and research budget in real terms in the 2015 spending review to ensure science spending remains on a sustainable footing and continues to deliver world-class research.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-21.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 5 February 2016 to Question 24869, whether the (a) Royal Bank of Scotland, (b) Bradford and Bingley and c) Northern Rock banks have received any public funding since they were taken into public ownership.

Harriett Baldwin

In 2008 and 2009 HM Treasury made a number of interventions to support institutions including Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock.

Full details of the funds used and outstanding balances can be found at the Office of Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) website and at UK Financial Investments’ (UKFI) website:-

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/

http://www.ukfi.co.uk/

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-03-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of differences in mortality rates for (a) permanent and (b) temporary workers.

Nick Boles

My Department has not made an assessment of the differences in mortality rates for permanent and temporary workers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-04-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what meetings he has initiated on steel in the last two years.

Anna Soubry

It is an established convention that Ministers of one Administration cannot see the documents of a previous Administration. I am therefore unable to provide the information requested by the hon Member for the entire period given in his Question.

I first met with Gareth Stace on 01 June 2015 and discussions with steel industry stakeholders continued thereafter to identify the policy priorities for dealing with the considerable challenges facing the sector. We convened a Steel Summit on 16 October 2015 which brought together all the major stakeholders, including key Government and industry participants as well as constituency MPs, recognising the significant part steel companies play in local communities. This led to the formation of three Ministerial Working Groups which took the lead on our efforts to deliver on the five key ‘Asks’ put to us by our partners in the steel industry.

To ensure a sustainable future we set up the Steel Council, co-chaired by my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to build on the achievements of the three previous Ministerial working groups, by looking at the longer term future of the sector and how we can strengthen the capability and competiveness of the UK steel industry both at home and globally. The Council met for the first time on 2 March.

Since this Government took office, BIS Ministers have undertaken a number of visits to steel-producing sites across the UK, including: SSI Redcar; Tata Steel facilities at Port Talbot, Scunthorpe and Rotherham; Celsa in Cardiff and the former-Tata Steel site at Motherwell recently re-opened by Liberty Steel.

To date we have made significant progress in addressing the challenges faced by the industry, including:

• Paying compensation towards their energy costs: the Steel industry has received £80m in compensation since 2013;

• Exempting the steel industry from renewable energy policy costs passed through in energy bills: this will save the steel industry hundreds of £millions over the course of this parliament.
• Securing flexibility over EU emissions regulations.
• Making sure that social and economic factors can be taken into account when Government procures steel;
• Continuing to tackle unfair trading practices at an EU and an International level.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-04-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the role of the PrescQIPP Programme is within his Department.

Alistair Burt

The PrescQIPP NHS Programme currently has no direct role within the Department as it is an independent social enterprise.

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) use its materials to improve the prescribing of medicines. These are mainly publicly available for CCGs and Health Boards, with some additional subscription-only content. Their governance and annual work programme is overseen by a strategic oversight group representing the users.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will make a comparative assessment of the effect of tariffs on steel imports in the EU and the US.

Anna Soubry

Each anti-dumping case is different. Moreover the levels of dumping and injury occurring in EU and US markets may be very different. The Government examines the evidence in all EU anti-dumping cases closely before taking a view.

The Government believes that effective trade defence measures should be proportionate, not protectionist, and strike a balance between removing the injury to producers caused by dumping, and avoiding imposing unnecessary costs on user industries, retailers, consumers and the rest of the economy. The evidence we have to date is that duties that have been imposed on imports of Chinese steel into the EU have been effective in delivering rapid, substantial and sustained reductions in imports. For example, imports of wire rod, organic coated steel and stainless steel flat products are down by more than 90%.

Where the European Commission has set duties that we believe to be too low to remove the injury caused to EU industry by dumped imports, we will push for them to be increased, as we have done in the reinforcing bar and cold rolled flat products cases.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-06-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of mechanisms for parliamentary oversight of the UK’s bilateral investment treaties.

Anna Soubry

Treaties, including bilateral investment treaties, that are subject to ratification, approval, acceptance, accession or the mutual notification of completion of procedures are laid before Parliament for scrutiny purposes for a period of 21 parliamentary sitting days under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Part 2: ratification of treaties) which commenced on 11 November 2010. This legislation provides that the UK cannot legally ratify or consent to be bound by a treaty laid under its provisions until the statutory 21 sitting day process has elapsed. During the 21 sitting days, hon Members and Select Committees have the chance to scrutinise the treaty provisions, ask questions, and potentially report. They may ask for extra time. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act does not guarantee a debate, but any request would have to be seriously considered. If Parliament debated and resolved that HMG “shall not ratify”, then the latter could not legally do so at that point.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2015-11-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions his Department has had with the Chinese government on the reported disappearance of Gui Haiming and other employees of Sage Communications in Hong Kong.

Mr Hugo Swire

We are following this issue closely along with EU partners. The UK takes seriously any threats to press freedom. We monitor this constantly including through the Foreign Secretary’s Six-Monthly Reports to Parliament. We have welcomed previous statements that the Hong Kong SAR Government remains committed to protecting the freedom of the press. We hope they and the Chinese authorities will also continue to make every effort to ensure that the environment in which the media, and publishers operate in the Hong Kong SAR is conducive to full and frank reporting.